tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058990608176249.post6211218429336723986..comments2023-05-28T03:49:37.676-04:00Comments on VagantePriest: Satisfaction or Cleansing? Response to John RoopFrGregACCAhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00368463715994694203noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058990608176249.post-69087205911820244362008-10-04T10:13:00.000-04:002008-10-04T10:13:00.000-04:00Fr. Greg,First, I pray your trip to Knoxville for ...Fr. Greg,<BR/><BR/>First, I pray your trip to Knoxville for the ACCA Convocation will be safe and filled with blessing for all. The saints of the ACCA are dear to God's heart and to mine. I had hoped to be present for Sr. Mariam's ordination to subdeacon, but it does not look like that will be possible. I will be present, however, in prayer and spirit.<BR/><BR/>Second, I need to clarify the intent of my original comment. It was not about the atonement; on that I think we are relatively clear and in agreement. In the incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, God accomplished for us that which we could not accomplish ourselves -- reconciliation; victory over sin, death, and hell; incorporation into the divine nature, etc. We call all of this -- possibly for lack of a better, more all-inclusive word -- atonement. That is the "thing itself." What we are discussing are various metaphors for the atonement -- theories about the "thing," but not the thing itself. We (you/me, East/West) should never be divided by our theories when it is the atonement itself that matters.<BR/><BR/>Frankly, as you well know, the NT offers us several metaphors: ransom, sacrifice (Paschal lamb imagery), Christus Victor, and, yes, penal substitution. I think it does so because no single one can bear the weight of description by itself. Each provides a glimpse of the great truths of God's holiness and love, and cumulatively we understand better than by focusing on any one metaphor in particular.<BR/><BR/>So, it was not (and is not) my intent to champion one metaphor over another -- and certainly not penal substitution (which in many ways is the metaphor I like least). But, I do strongly believe that we do our faith a disservice when we construct a most uncharitable caricature of a particular metaphor and then proceed to strike it down. And I still think the parable you quoted does just that. Many strong proponents of penal substitution would not recognize that as an honest attempt to illustrate their convictions -- nor do I, who hold that metaphor as loosely as I hold all others. As semanticists say: "The word is not the thing, and the map is not the territory."<BR/><BR/>I need the Eastern and Oriental metaphors to balance my understanding of the atonement. Likewise, my Eastern and Oriental brothers and sisters need the Western metaphors. There is a little truth in each, and full truth in none. The atonement is the truth, not our metaphors for it.<BR/><BR/>Thank you for referring me again to "The River of Fire." I have read it many times, in fact. I find it interesting and helpful, but not theologically compelling as a sole atonement metaphor. It captures part of the truth, as do the others -- but no more than that. (And, it is charitable to call it a polemic. A large dose of humility for all of us is in order.)<BR/><BR/>I may do a review of "A Community Called Atonement" sometime, though you can almost certainly read better ones (and probably mixed ones) on Amazon. The basic theme of the book is that the atonement can best be understood as "identification for incorporation." That is, Jesus identified fully with humanity -- all the way down to death -- so that we might be incorporated into the divine nature through our life in him. You might like the imagery: McKnight describes humanity as cracked Eikons and the atonement as a restoration of the divine image.<BR/><BR/>Enough for now. Grace and peace to you through our Lord Jesus Christ -- through whom we have atonement.<BR/><BR/>John<BR/>www.rooppage.blogspot.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058990608176249.post-32099200635287641732008-10-04T09:00:00.000-04:002008-10-04T09:00:00.000-04:00You've brought up an interesting subject. It brin...You've brought up an interesting subject. It brings to mind for me an entirely different topic, namely the concept of the Jehovah's Witnesses.<BR/><BR/>As you probably know, these people are Arians. They adhere to the "perfect man" theory about Jesus Christ. They also have the idea that Jesus Christ's sacrifice was a perfect payment for sin. This is based on the idea that, since human history is finite and human actions are thus finite, the amount of sin to be paid for is also finite. So it's possible in their idea for the "perfect man" to have the finite payment, which obviates the need for an infinite God to do so.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.vulcanhammer.org/unusual/mlmg/" REL="nofollow">The JW's Arian theology, of course, cannot stand, as I demonstrate here.</A>Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14520020316466378352noreply@blogger.com