This whole emergent thing really scares me. Here's one reason why.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I teach, I cook, I blog.
About Me
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(266)
-
▼
February
(18)
- Typo
- DC Talk - I Wish We'd All Been Ready [Live]
- Investment Tip
- Ten Shekels and a Shirt
- Smoke Signals
- "Save the Chickens!" cries Tony Jones
- Need a Laugh?
- Jesus Calms a Storm
- Brian McLaren's Attack Against Hell and Jesus Aton...
- Tommy Emmanuel:Somewhere Over the Rainbow
- The Dlog Episode Seventeen: Government
- BBC (Broadcasting for Barack Corporation)
- Boxers, briefs, or ?
- Precinct 13 Straw Vote
- Mr. D and The Vice Versa Prayer
- Too Cheap to Buy This One
- Churches and Money: A Rant by Linda Dugan
- Happy Little Boy!
-
▼
February
(18)
Links
- The Husband
- Chris
- Nikki
- KatieBec
- BethiPoo
- Mark
- The Boy Scout
- Beeper
- Jeremy
- Diane
- Mindy
- Holly
- Marie
- Nedra
- Reesha
- Michelle
- Patricia
- Michael and Cari
- Baby John
- Paul Sunde
- Kaps Kids
- Barb J.
- Jennifer
- Minnehaha Co-op
- Lark News
- Michael W. Smith
- Truth vs.The Machine
- GCM Error Statement
- Decommissioned
- National Right to Life
- Desiring God
- Don't Waste Your Life Blog
- Dugan Design Group
9 comments:
Hey Linda,
We Orthodox don't agree with penal substitution either. Since I haven't ever read McLaren I'm not sure what his position is, but this is a nice explanation of how we think of it.
The Meaning of Christ's Suffering
Scott
Hi Scott,
Thanks for writing. I think McLaren is more Universalist if you read his writings (he wants people to be Buddhist and a follower of Jesus, and Hindu and a follower of Jesus, etc.). He apparently doesn't believe in hell, and thinks everyone goes to heaven. Thinks Jesus was only here to set an example that we are to follow.
I printed out Fredrica's article and will give it a read when I get upstairs where my glasses are! Thanks for the link.
Oops, I spelled Frederica incorrectly and don't know how to fix it without trashing my whole comment.
Interesting article and it made for a lively and educational breakfast discussion. I agree with her partially, the rescue part, but also believe the atonement part of the crucifixion implies the penal substitutionary part.
I suppose that's a difference between Orthodox and Protestant. I think McLaren would not be in either the Orthodox or Protestant camp. Based on other things I've read and heard him say, he's talking about something entirely different.
I'm sure you're right about McLaren not being in the Orthodox camp. We definitely wouldn't tell people to follow both Vishnu and Jesus! It sounds like he's leaning toward the kooky fringe.
In the Old Testament sacrificial system, I don't remember God equating animal sacrifice and animal punishment. In my opinion, penal substitution conflates those two distinct concepts.
I do like the way the Nicene creed emphasizes Christ's victory.
"he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;
from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead;
whose kingdom shall have no end."
Scott
I'm a little dense, I know, but I don't think of animal sacrifice and animal punishment two distinct concepts. Except that "animal punishment" sounds weird!
I suppose the problem I have with McLaren's comment is that he seems to think that forgiveness today requires that someone be punished (his kick the dog example) which I think is missing the point of the Cross.
The wages of sin is death, the "fine" was paid by Jesus, and justice has been served. I can forgive others because I can entrust my case to the one who judges justly who also, praise God, happens to be the one who already paid the fine. I don't need to kick the dog! That was done on the cross.
The verse that comes to mind is:
"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed."
I think the Frederica article is emphasizing the second half of that verse. So, I agree with her on that part.
How would Orthodox people explain the "bore our sins part" of that verse?
Well, for starters getting a single "Orthodox opinion" is pretty hard sometimes. Although we're one church, there's not a pope who can speak ex cathedra. So this is my opinion from the reading I've done and the liturgies I've attended.
We do believe in substitutionary atonement, just not in *penal* substitutionary atonement. We are 100% in agreement that Christ suffered for our sins and bore them on the cross. That's the substitutionary sacrifice part. I don't see how you could be a Christian if you didn't believe that.
Where we part ways is the penal part, saying Christ died because God had to punish Christ in order to forgive us.
The wikipedia article on substitutionary atonement talks a little about the difference as well.
Interesting, I shall read the wiki article. In the meantime, I am enjoying this discussion.
Post a Comment