Peter Kirk has collected a series of his comments into a single post along with links to various blogs that can bring you up to date on the atonement wars. I weighed in with a post over on my Participatory Bible Study blog. I see that Coops hasn’t posted in his atonement series since March 19th.
I know how it can go. One can get really, really tangled discussing the atonement!
A few days ago I blogged about Psalm 95 and how I felt that Matthew Henry had missed the emphasis. I’ve mentioned before that my current devotional exercise is to read the lectionary texts for coming Sundays starting two weeks ahead until the Sunday in question. Thus I’m continually reading two sets of lectionary texts….
Since I previously posted on the interview that Adrian Warnock is conducting with Wayne Grudem, I thought it would be a good idea to update. There are two more entries of interest: Part Four – Ethical Trajectories, Feminism, and HomosexualityI’m afraid the argument here that stands out is that feminism, and the arguments used by…
Peter Kirk has written a post titled The Gospel is not incompatible with theistic evolution, in which he responds to an article by Dr. David Shackelford. Peter’s response covers most of the ground. I wanted to add something here, however, regarding “continuous upward progress,” which Dr. Shackelford, as quoted by Peter, says is “demanded” by…
Dowd, Michael. Thank God for Evolution. New York: Plume, 2007. 380 pages + front and back matter. ISBN: 978-0-452-29534-6. (All numbers in parentheses are page numbers from this edition of the book.) I was interested in this book from the moment I saw the title, not because I immediately expected to agree, but because it,…
The Christian Post has a portion of an interview with John Piper in response to the question: Why was it right for God to slaughter women and children in the Old Testament? How can that ever be right? And the first sentence of his answer is the title of this post. I can hardly tell…
A couple of updates on this controversy. I may have spoken too soon on the matter of the duties of the conference hosts. It appears that people may have gotten the videos there. I’m still not sure precisely what happened, so I will still maintain that handing out the video would be the right thing…
Comments are closed.
Yes, we can get really tangled! That’s why I decided not to get involved in your Participatory Bible Study discussion. I don’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 “justified” 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 “justified” as meaning the latter – that the sinner is found “not guilty” 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’m not sure.
For what it’s worth, I’m not disappointed not to get into a discussion of that. I’d almost have to simply refer people to Martyn’s Galatians commentary, and he isn’t even discussing PSA, but rather only Paul’s word usage.
It’s pretty complex and I’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.
Ahh! Yes, must continue the series… it has too many open questions now!