tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post3299772748428842164..comments2023-12-27T11:23:38.346-05:00Comments on Vanguard Church - Bob Robinson: DA Carson versus the Emerging Church, 06Bob Robinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08576734261775426385noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-85637499993283493122007-03-10T22:38:00.000-05:002007-03-10T22:38:00.000-05:00Bob,I agree with Scot McKnight that your blog is a...Bob,<BR/><BR/>I agree with Scot McKnight that your blog is a safe and reasonable place to discuss these things (though Tim Keller may not be familiar enough yet with the doings here to know that, so I don't fault him for bowing out--you have been taking his good friend to task for the last week!).<BR/><BR/>And I thank you for listening to my perspective and giving a whole separate comment to register agreement with me. I don't think that you and I are all that very far apart on this (though I'm not sure about the EC on the whole).<BR/><BR/>Your post and Scot McKnights' have given me some good things to think about (and been fun discussion fodder for my wife and me!).<BR/><BR/>I need to think more about how I see the atonement stories working. I was especially helped by Scot's talking about how really big sin is(in multiple ways) and how big a gospel we need to be saved from it.<BR/><BR/>-Matt<BR/><BR/>P.S. At the same time, I'm not yet convinced of your suggested paradigm shift. I think I might say that in my reading of Scripture, Christus Victor may be <I>an even bigger story than propitiation</I> (more cosmic in its dimensions), but that it is intrinsically and inextricably linked to a propitiatory center (I'm thinking of Revelation 5, for example).<BR/><BR/>If I get a chance to formulate my thoughts more coherantly, I'll probably chime in again.Matt Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07270416631376832060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-36970980519100979662007-03-10T19:30:00.000-05:002007-03-10T19:30:00.000-05:00RonMcK,You say, "The EC probably is too loose in t...RonMcK,<BR/><BR/>You say, "The EC probably is too loose in the way it defines injustice. It often just takes on board a perspective rooted in Marx, rather than really digging into the scriptures."<BR/><BR/>I'll definitely look forward to interacting with you as I do my next series, "Toward an Emerging Understanding of Justice." Your insights will be welcome.Bob Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08576734261775426385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-53172975946633440172007-03-10T16:23:00.000-05:002007-03-10T16:23:00.000-05:00I have really enjoyed this series. Very helpful.I ...I have really enjoyed this series. Very helpful.<BR/><BR/>I would have to agree with Carson on one point that you mention. The EC probably is too loose in the way it defines injustice. It often just takes on board a perspective rooted in Marx, rather than really digging into the scriptures.<BR/><BR/>Glad to see that you are firing well again.<BR/><BR/>RonRon McKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03989126812730583009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-66995341765141004362007-03-10T14:30:00.000-05:002007-03-10T14:30:00.000-05:00Girard taught there was mimetic rivalry in culture...Girard taught there was mimetic rivalry in culture that occasionally broke out into a potent act of violence against a victim (the scapegoat) and this brought the mimetic rivalry and violence to a hault for awhile.<BR/><BR/>Jesus is the victim of mimetic rival violence. However, God identifies with the Victim and ends the legitimacy of scapegoating. By taking the side of the victim, violence comes to an end.<BR/><BR/>So the cross becomes the creation of a non-violent society.Scot McKnighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12464859313317428105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-80079873143988829682007-03-10T14:26:00.000-05:002007-03-10T14:26:00.000-05:00excuse my ignorance, but could someone enlighten m...excuse my ignorance, but could someone enlighten me on the idea of Girardianism? i assume it flows from Rene Girard, but what exactly does it entail?joeldanielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16330524942456098847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-87772748091543805382007-03-10T12:15:00.000-05:002007-03-10T12:15:00.000-05:00Bob,Thanks for this discussion. It has been reason...Bob,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for this discussion. It has been reasonable, though I don't like that Tim Keller begged out -- I think he would have been good for this discussion since no one was throwing bombs at one another. It seems safe enough; I don't agree with him one bit that blogs are only for those who agree. There are kinds of disagreements -- and he is right in this -- that are not conducive to blogging, but if we're grownup enough, we can sit with one another and air clear differences. This blog is a safe one for such conversations. Bob has been gracious and reasonable at every turn.<BR/><BR/>I'm with those who think we need to exploit the variety of images that seek to articulate -- none of them exhaustively or completely --what God has done for us in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ; and not to forget the new life in the Spirit. I have great doubt that we can find the "central" image; I see the same with christological titles. It depends on context. There is no need to find the "central". (It's an assumption we have; it is not a biblical one.) Nor do the NT writers constantly show that each redemptive term has to be connected to wrath or even death (which is the punishment for sin, not wrath -- wrath mediates death).<BR/><BR/>Here's what has happened to me: I do think folks like Dever and Carson seek to use all the images. What I think is the tell-tale revealing point is how the gospel is preached for each one. Does one gravitate each time to sin/wrath or does one also sometimes find the place to begin in sin/captivity, sin/alienation, sin/moral failure, etc? In other words, the problem (how we define sin and the problem) is the problem. We have to let sin be as big as it is if we want the atonement and the gospel to be as big as it is. And "propitiation" (the term penal substitutionists favor) speaks to one constellation of defining the sin problem and its manifesting problem. Namely, it speaks to sin as offense against the holy God and the wrath that such rebellion generates in the all-holy God. I for one do not deny this rhetoric; I say it is only one rhetoric in the Bible. There are others; they don't bring up death and they don't bring up wrath. They bring up captivity -- wrath has to be imported.<BR/><BR/>And, to clarify: I do think some in the emerging movement deny penal substitution; and in my assessment Brian is Girardian. The Secret Message has a section on the death of Jesus and it sure sounds Girardian to me.Scot McKnighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12464859313317428105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-18499222093254365502007-03-09T21:33:00.000-05:002007-03-09T21:33:00.000-05:00That being said (which I give its own stand-alone ...That being said <B>(which I give its own stand-alone comment because it deserves it)</B>, I have this little beef with those who say that “substitutionary penal sacrifice is the heart/ center/ quintessential flower in the bouquet of atonement stories.” <BR/><BR/>It has to do with our understanding of “salvation.”<BR/><BR/>When we think of “salvation” biblically, is the primary image that of propitiation? What is the prominent image of “salvation” that we find in the Bible?<BR/><BR/>I submit what the <I>New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis</I> says concerning the Hebrew word for salvation, <I>yasa</I>: <B>“the root’s specifically theological usage concerns the acts of God’s salvation in Israel’s history (65x)…Not surprisingly, forms of yasa bracket the report of the OT’s paradigmatic salvation-event, the Exodus (Exod 14). Moses invokes nom. to predict the imminent “deliverance of the LORD will bring” (v. 13), and the vb. is used to indicate that Yahweh “saved” Israel from Egypt (v. 30). The Song of the Sea invokes the same nom. to praise Yahweh as Israel’s “salvation” (15:2). Here emerges a pattern prominent later: divine deliverance follows Israel’s cry for help (14:10-12).”</B><BR/><BR/>So, I think that to say that “substitutionary penal sacrifice is the heart/ center/ quintessential flower in the bouquet of atonement stories” (as Carson does) is to <B>deny</B> that the paradigmatic salvation-event of the Old Testament, the Exodus, should shape our understanding of the salvation event of Jesus Christ (remember, Jesus died during the celebration of Passover, the commemoration of this paradigmatic salvation-event. I think that we forget that and presume he died on Yom Kippur). <BR/><BR/>I don’t deny that this is paradigm-shifting! I don’t deny that to say that penal substitution is not the main way to understand the cross-event can shake up our evangelical sensibilities. But I also think that those who insist that the “Christus Victor” theory of Atonement is of some lower-tier significance in relation to the “Penal Substitution” theory are not correct in that assertion. “Christus Victor” is the Atonement theory that springs out of an understanding that the Exodus should shape our understanding of salvation.Bob Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08576734261775426385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-47143799769130578432007-03-09T21:26:00.000-05:002007-03-09T21:26:00.000-05:00Matt,I really appreciate your comment.What you say...Matt,<BR/><BR/>I really appreciate your comment.<BR/><BR/>What you say at the end I fully affirm: “for people to be truly savingly converted, we have to go through a sin-bearing sacrificial savior.” I sincerely believe that. One (HUGE!) aspect of “salvation” is our being “saved” from the wrath of God for our rebellion against him. We are being “saved” from our rightful punishment, Hell. This is the wonderful story of Penal Substitution. I am one who is not willing to give that up, ever. Why? Because it is true, it is biblical, it is beautiful. <BR/><BR/>I think that many, many people can relate to this story. I think that many, many people must own up to the fact that they are sinners in need of forgiveness and in need of salvation from God’s wrath.Bob Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08576734261775426385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-6349261449406487452007-03-09T14:46:00.000-05:002007-03-09T14:46:00.000-05:00Try to see this from Carson's point of view.If you...Try to see this from Carson's point of view.<BR/><BR/>If you earnestly believe that "Christ and Him crucified," "the righteous for the unrighteous to bring you to God," substitutionary penal sacrifice is the heart/center/quintessential flower in the bouquet of atonement stories as Carson does (and count me in with him on this), what else could you do but champion it everywhere you see it attacked or wobbled off balance?<BR/><BR/>Carson believes that the Cross is multivalent. Read his "Cross and Christian Ministry" for plenty of different takes on the Cross in one book (including exemplary!)--but at the same time--he believes that the Bible teaches substitution at the heart of the gospel.<BR/><BR/>You may disagree with Carson's take on the center (if there is one) of the gospel, but Carson has made his conclusion about what he thinks it is and is warning people from shaking lose from it. Carson is a teacher. And he's passionately teaching what he's learned.<BR/><BR/>That seems fair to me.<BR/><BR/>If he's wrong, then he's tilted toward a windmill.<BR/><BR/>But if he's right (as I judge him to be on this point), then he should be listened to.<BR/><BR/>-Matt<BR/><BR/>P.S. By the way, missiologically speaking, I can see how we might want to begin with something other than substitutionary penal atonement as the starting point in gospel presentation. I agree that there are lots of ways to move towards Christ in our encounters with postmodern people. But I do think (contra Bob here) that eventually, for people to be truly savingly converted, we have to go through a sin-bearing sacrificial savior.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for listening to my thoughts.Matt Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07270416631376832060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-57563732625412193622007-03-09T12:18:00.000-05:002007-03-09T12:18:00.000-05:00Hey Bob,I've read all your postings on this topic,...Hey Bob,<BR/>I've read all your postings on this topic, and have enjoyed them. I found your blog kind of by accident I suppose. Actually I think I saw a link on Tony Jones blog.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I tried reading DA Carson's book, but gave up about halfway through. I generally got the same feeling you have expressed here. I really was surprised by at the amount of strawmen, and I wondered if he had actually read everything he was criticizing. I have read pretty much all of McClaren's books, and though I can't say I agree with all of his conclusions, I don't see how people come away saying he is heretical. I suppose it comes down to, as others have mentioned, that once you start straying from a strict Reformed theology, you are considered lost.<BR/><BR/>I was actually thinking about this today because I am a campus pastor, and I downloaded one of John Piper's sermons from Passion 07 (I didn't get to go this year). I was really kind of taken aback at what he said in this sermon. He basically said that Penal Substitution is the only correct way to look at the death of Christ. He didn't say it was one of the ways, but the only way. Now I will say, I do believe in Atonement as a major part of the Cross and Resurrection, but to present that as the only point is leaving a lot out. Piper actually was kind of taking a stand against the Emerging/Emergent movement here in my mind, with saying so much. I know this is a little off the topic, but I was just surprised because I really do respect him. I just think to present the death and resurrection in this way only starts giving the conflicting message that God hates you/wants to kill you and loves you. I know that's not what he is saying, but to someone not paying close attention it sure could come off that.<BR/><BR/>It just seems to me that there is a group of Christian leaders who are sure they are 100% correct and are above question. It is really sad because I believe these men truly are a blessing to the Church, but I believe they have unwittingly shut themselves off to a huge number of people. I'm trying to say this humbly, and I realize that there is always the chance that I might be wrong.Phil Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06025274208716134189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-66687417945076700422007-03-09T05:09:00.000-05:002007-03-09T05:09:00.000-05:00Bob, I know where I stand on theology and I know w...Bob, <BR/>I know where I stand on theology and I know why I moved away from what Carson thinks is 'proper theology'. The short and long of it is that while there are great followers of Jesus in that tradition that is in spite of and not because of the 'theology'. <BR/><BR/>To be true to the scriptures and most particularly to be true to my Lord as He is revealed in the gospel means leaving the leaven of pharisaically propositional thinking behind and getting back into life, ministry and discipleship with Jesus as Lord.<BR/><BR/>What I'm getting at I guess, is that let's share the gospel with our brothers and let's not be defensive about it either!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12014124722441378520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-62586081290007469522007-03-08T18:21:00.000-05:002007-03-08T18:21:00.000-05:00To be clear - I'm not saying that substitution is ...To be clear - I'm not saying that substitution is anti-trinitarian. To the contrary, when it is explicitly trinitarian, then it is actually a quite powerful image. However, it's often framed in a sloppy way that doesn't <I>emphasize</I> the trinity, and as such becomes a caricature that needs correcting.ScottBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17351891814953244831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-26963499730828751052007-03-08T18:16:00.000-05:002007-03-08T18:16:00.000-05:00bob - I'm in complete agreement. I think that wha...bob - I'm in complete agreement. I think that what tends to happen by both the defenders and detractors of substitution is that the trinitarian nature of the atonement is not made the central motif. As a result, both sides tend to emphasize the Father as over against the Son, instead of seeing the perichoretic unity of both Father and Son (and Spirit as well) working in concert to accomplish redemption.<BR/><BR/>In short - we need to vigorously critique <I>any</I> model, or articulation thereof, that doesn't begin with a robust trinitarian view of the cross.ScottBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17351891814953244831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-90192644181536818202007-03-08T16:57:00.000-05:002007-03-08T16:57:00.000-05:00Graeme and ScottB, I think that McLaren can, at ti...Graeme and ScottB, <BR/><BR/>I think that McLaren can, at times, seem to be antogonistic towards Penal Substitution, but I think that it may be more about being antogonistic toward the poor articulation of penal substitution that <I>sounds</I> like cosmic child abuse.<BR/><BR/>In other words, we should ALL be antoginistic toward an articulation of penal substitution that makes it sound that way. No thinking theologian should articulate their view of penal substitution in a way that it sounds like God sent his son against the son's will to suffer the father's wrath (as if God the Father and God the Son are two entities at odds with each other). But in popular-level parlance, we may hear something to this effect.Bob Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08576734261775426385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-73922127180613173662007-03-08T16:48:00.000-05:002007-03-08T16:48:00.000-05:00JoelDaniel,I think you're working through this iss...JoelDaniel,<BR/><BR/>I think you're working through this issue with determinism and humility.Bob Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08576734261775426385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-71142604766944667532007-03-08T16:41:00.000-05:002007-03-08T16:41:00.000-05:00samlcarr,I agree with you that the EC is philosoph...samlcarr,<BR/><BR/>I agree with you that the EC is philosophically closer to true Reformational and Augustinian thought than is today's modern evangelicalism. <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://vanguardchurch.blogspot.com/2006/07/apologetics-and-postmodern-turn.html" REL="nofollow">I wrote about this specifically here</A>. <BR/><BR/>a quote:<BR/><I>"...a postmodern apologetic will harken back to Augustine's 'I believe in order to understand.' In other words, a postmodern apologetic affirms that there is no certainty apart from faith, and the only kind of understanding possible for us humans grows in the environment of faith. It will also harken back to a Reformational Epistemology, one that reflects Ecclesiastes 3:11, 'God has set eternity in the hearts of men.'"</I>Bob Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08576734261775426385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-58357686774483167002007-03-08T16:27:00.000-05:002007-03-08T16:27:00.000-05:00Eric,You’ve got me right. I don’t think it is abso...Eric,<BR/><BR/>You’ve got me right. I don’t think it is absolutely necessary for a person to understand penal substitutionary atonement to be reconciled to God. <BR/><BR/>And I know that this seems contrary to the Reformation (since wasn’t the Reformation all about the rediscovery that the gospel is penal substitution? At least that’s what we’ve been told). I don't think you have to understand a certain propositional theological construct in order to be saved; I think that you need to meet the Savior.<BR/><BR/>What I am doing is affirming the first quote you offer from Dever: “A Christ who wins victory over the powers of evil, whose death changes us, and whose death propitiates God is not only conceivable, he seems to be the Bible's composite presentation.”<BR/><BR/>However, I am disagreeing with the second Dever quote. Why can’t we just as easily say this: <B>"When we give attention and authority to all parts of the biblical canon, exodus and freedom from exile is the center and focus of it’s witness to the meaning of Christ's death, and the measure of God's redeeming love."</B> <BR/><BR/>That statement has just as much legitimacy as Dever’s statement. Neither statement is absolutely correct, but both have legitimate claims to biblical revelation.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the interaction. You and I have been through this for a while. We had better agree to disagree. I invite anyone who is interested in tracing this discussion to <A HREF="http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGIH,GGIH:2007-02,GGIH:en&q=eric+steen+site:vanguardchurch%2eblogspot%2ecom" REL="nofollow">follow this link</A>.Bob Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08576734261775426385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-21836007341547575632007-03-08T14:44:00.000-05:002007-03-08T14:44:00.000-05:00Bob,Thank you for your thoughtful response. I want...Bob,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your thoughtful response. <BR/><BR/>I want to be fair here. As far as I know you have never denied the merit of PS. Your concern, I believe, is that men like Dever and Carson focus too much on PS at the expense of other atonement theories. In a previous post you clearly stated that a sinner may be reconciled to God by embracing PS, but that he may also be reconciled to God without embracing Penal Substitution if he accepts some other atonement theory. <A HREF="http://vanguardchurch.blogspot.com/2006/05/penal-substitution-revisited.html" REL="nofollow">(See quiz)</A>. <BR/><BR/>Certainly there is unsearchable joy and great benefit to growing in the knowledge of our Savior and comprehending the extent of Christ's glorious work. Mark Dever, in the article that rekindled this debate said as much. <A HREF="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/may/9.29.html" REL="nofollow">(CT Article) </A> Anticipating the question, Dever asks, "Rather than pitting these [atonement] theories against one another, couldn't they be evaluated together? A Christ who wins victory over the powers of evil, whose death changes us, and whose death propitiates God is not only conceivable, he seems to be the Bible's composite presentation." <BR/><BR/>Then Dever explains, "When we give attention and authority to all parts of the New Testament canon, substitution becomes the center and focus of the Bible's witness to the meaning of Christ's death, and the measure of God's redeeming love." <BR/><BR/>In the proper context theories other than PS have merit. Yet in and of themselves they are not sufficient to reconcile fallen man to a holy God. They lack salvific power. How can one lay hold of the Savior without understanding from what (or whom) one is saved? Must not one understand that his personal sin has offended a righteous and loving God, and he can in now way make himself acceptable to God? Must not one understand that Christ endured the punishment due him, that Christ's vicarious work is the only thing that reconciles the sinner to God?<BR/><BR/>Thanks.<BR/><BR/>EricAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-90747341091535219462007-03-08T11:09:00.000-05:002007-03-08T11:09:00.000-05:00Eric,You're raising some other great questions con...Eric,<BR/><BR/>You're raising some other great questions concerning the Bible's teaching on injustice.<BR/><BR/>I am currently working on this subject and will be presenting a series of blog posts about this topic in the near future.Bob Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08576734261775426385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-2767577482559238942007-03-08T11:07:00.000-05:002007-03-08T11:07:00.000-05:00Eric Steen,I really appreciate your comment. I thi...Eric Steen,<BR/><BR/>I really appreciate your comment. I think that the reason we believe in substitutionary atonement is that the Apostle Paul teaches it. Amen. <BR/><BR/>Contrary to what Carson is saying the Emerging Church is doing, we do not, “pick and choose our favorite Atonement Theory and ditch the rest.” What we <I>are</I> saying is that the entire rose bouquet is there for us in order to understand the full depth of the Atonement. When we pull out one rose and say that it is the sum total of the Atonement, we do damage to the whole of the gospel. <BR/><BR/>If I were to say that “one could be reconciled to God by merely following Christ's example,” I would be doing that same sort of damage (so, if it seemed that I said this, let me put the record straight!!).<BR/><BR/>We can, however, pull out a single rose in order to introduce people to one aspect of the Atonement, with the intention of bringing them over to the entire bouquet so that they can understand it all. I think it is highly appropriate, in an evangelistic discussion with a person whose worldview is primarily one of law and judgment, to pull out the one rose about “penal substitution” in order to introduce that person to the work of Christ. I also think it is highly appropriate, in an evangelistic discussion with a person whose worldview is primarily one of pain and the struggle against evil, to pull out the rose of “Christus Victor” in order to introduce <I>that</I> person to the work of Christ. I can do this, as long as I realize that these are all parts of a larger bouquet. <BR/><BR/>In other words, this is not just a matter of <I>theology</I>; it is a matter of missiology. <BR/><BR/>For a more thorough explanation of my views of the atonement please (please!) see my post, <A HREF="http://vanguardchurch.blogspot.com/2006/06/kingdom-of-god-and-atonement.html" REL="nofollow">The Kingdom of God and the Atonement</A>.Bob Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08576734261775426385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-10612551343318505752007-03-08T10:26:00.000-05:002007-03-08T10:26:00.000-05:00While many modern evangelical scholars are up in a...While many modern evangelical scholars are up in arms against the ECs PoMo leanings, I have heard and read very little to rigorously justify the idea that modernism is more biblical or closer to biblical thinking. There is much to be said in support of the EC being philosophically closer to some strands of Reformation or even Augustinian thought than is today's modern evangelicalism.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12014124722441378520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-56623696806988399122007-03-08T07:39:00.000-05:002007-03-08T07:39:00.000-05:00Bob--You very kindly and respectfully asked me a q...Bob--You very kindly and respectfully asked me a question and I don't want to be churlish and stay totally silent. But over the last few years I've come to doubt the value of the average blog format for working out disagreements over more comprehensive views. Anything I could say here would be too short (to do the questions justice) and too long (for the format of a blog) at the same time. Blogs are excellent for sharing news among the like-minded but not good at all for conversing over differences. So I want to just as respectfully decline to go in to this. Sorry and thanks. Tim KellerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-22257666389298262792007-03-08T01:14:00.000-05:002007-03-08T01:14:00.000-05:00Great discussions. Thanks for the posts.Maybe I a...Great discussions. Thanks for the posts.<BR/><BR/>Maybe I am just too sucked into the emerging church movement to even notice heresy, but can someone please let me know where Brian McLaren has, in any of his writings, ever questioned penal substitutionary atonement.<BR/><BR/>I know that one of Carson's major targets is McLaren, but reading through McLaren's works, I fail to see what he sees. Am I just blind, or did I miss the subtext, or something?<BR/><BR/>I know McLaren has a wider view of atonement (I like the bouquet analogy in this regard), but to my understanding he has not removed penal substitutionary atonement - he has added to it.<BR/><BR/>Carson seems to take an either/or, all-or-nothing type approach. Which, to my mind, is exactly the critique postmodernism has of modernism, and emerging church has of traditional church...<BR/><BR/>Graeme CodringtonGraeme Codringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00870850820738968819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-50104564487998069962007-03-07T16:56:00.000-05:002007-03-07T16:56:00.000-05:00Hello Bob, Your view of the atonement differs not ...Hello Bob, <BR/><BR/>Your view of the atonement differs not only from Dever and Carson, but the Apostle Paul. You hold that penal substitution is but one way to embrace the Savior. You testify that one may lay hold of the glorious Savior via numerous atonement theories, without embracing PS. Ostensibly, one could be reconciled to God by merely by following Christ's example. <BR/><BR/>I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your motivation is to exalt God by not constrainging the scope of Christ's sacrifice. Even so, Bob, by seeking to expand the atonement you undermine it. To be blunt, your understanding of the atonement is seriously flawed for it diminishes our Savior's sacrifice. (2 Cor 5:21, Gal 3:3, Is 53, Heb 2:17, Rom 8:1-4)<BR/><BR/>While I am at it... If justice issues are on par with idolatry, why does Paul in the epistle to the Colossians (Col 3:5-6) equate "immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed" to idolatry? why does't Paul say that these things are equal to "social injustice"? What's more, Paul says that it is because of these idolatries that "the wrath of God will come". <BR/><BR/>Eric SteenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-50369407776133631272007-03-07T16:06:00.000-05:002007-03-07T16:06:00.000-05:00I'm not surprised. I read the Dever article in CT ...I'm not surprised. I read the Dever article in CT and had the same feeling as I did reading your post here.<BR/><BR/>It appears that "penal substitutionary atonement" has been turned into the litmus test for orthodoxy lately. And therein lies my concern. This one viewpoint is being held up as <I>the</I> [only?] way to read the significance of the atonement. If you were to share with someone that while you appreciate "penal substitutionary atonement" you've enjoyed exploring ___________ way of reading the atonement - sadly, the response often given is that communicates you've abandoned orthodoxy and "done damage" to the text.<BR/><BR/>By the way, I loved your bouquet metaphor. I've refered to it often. Do I owe you some kind of Starbucks-related royalty?<BR/><BR/>The other metaphor I've been exploring lately is that of a multi-paned window. "Penal substitutionary" is one of the panes by which we gaze upon the beauty of the atonement. To limit our vision to one pane of the window is to miss the fullness of the panoramic view that lies before us.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com