Sentences with phrase «atonement theory»

But the larger idea focuses on atonement theory.

1) I read A New Kind of Christianity on my Kindle on the treadmill, which means I contemplated the effects of the Greco - Roman narrative on atonement theory with a heavy dose of endorphins pumping through my bloodstream.

This assumption is largely derived from a distorted inheritance of the medieval satisfaction atonement theory of Anselm of Canterbury and a ubiquitous misinterpretation of Romans 3.»

I now believe that there is no atonement theory in Romans and that Paul had a different, and fairly clear, theory of how Jesus saves us.

(I was the first person to explain the Substitutionary Atonement theory to one of our bishops, and at first he couldn't believe anyone could possibly believe that, and once convinced was appalled.)

I thought that adopting a more or less Pauline Christianity did not require that one adopt an atonement theory, certainly not that of Anselm.

There is no atonement theory in the story of the prodigal son, but this idea of a father reaching out his arms and running down the road to welcome this wretched young lad — how can you not be moved by that and just say, «Thank you, this is for me»?

It is amazing, surely, when every textbook of Christian systematics one can think of develops three or more (usually three) historic types of atonement theory, that people in the pews (and many in the pulpits!)

If we think of Jesus» work apart from traditional atonement theory, what happens to the doctrine of Jesus» person?»

Rollie, I too have issues with atonement theory but I don't see the link you are making with Jesus» teaching on salvation with that.

By saying there is no room for «personal salvation» in your understanding of Jesus» teaching and then claiming that personal salvation gets us to the topic of atonement theory — what was it that you were wanting to say if not making a link between atonement theory and salvation?

Jack — Regarding personal salvation: This gets us to the topic of atonement theory.

Leave a little room on the edges, don't fill it all up, Church, with consumerism and light show performances or with hermeneutical gymnastics and atonement theories: leave a little room for the Love and the breathing, for the remembering and suffering, for the grieving and the longing, and the Holy stirring of an interruption.

The predominant atonement theories, in my opinion, miss the point.

The earliest and (according to Gustav Aulen) Luther's atonement theories were not addressed to the anxiety of guilt, but to that of (in Tillich's terms) «fate and death.»

What is perhaps most frustrating about engaging in such conversations within the evangelical community in particular, however, is that differences regarding things like Calvinism and Arminianism, baptism, heaven and hell, gender roles, homosexuality, and atonement theories often disintegrate into harsh accusations in which we question one another's commitment to Scripture.

Jacobsen packs a tremendous amount of theology and age - old questions in there, I particularly benefitted from the discussions about what really happened on the Cross, as it presents an alternative to the oft - memorized penal substituionary (Google doesn't think that is a word apparently...) atonement theories.

We are justly cautious about reiterating atonement theories.

When I began to have doubts about miracles and atonement theories, for example, I began, for the first time, to think deeply about them.

Highlights for me included: 1) Belcher's call in Chapter 3 to find common ground in classic / orthodox Christianity (the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed) which, if applied, would dramatically reduce some of the name - calling and accusations of heresy that have been most unhelpful in the discussion between the emerging and traditional camps, 2) Belcher's fabulous treatment of postmodernism and postfoundationalism in Chapter 4, where he rightly explains that when talking about postmodernism, folks in the emerging church and the traditional church are using the same term to refer to two completely different things, and where he concludes that «a third way rejects classical foundationalism and hard postmodernism,» and 3) Belcher's fair handling of the atonement issue in Chapter 6, in which he clarifies that most emergering church leaders «are not against atonement theories and justification, but want to see it balanced with the message of the kingdom of God.»

This PPT gives a thorough explanation and analysis of the meaning of atonement and the various atonement theories which are needed for covering the 2016 A level course.

Not exact matches

Unlike Anselm's legalistic theory of the Atonement, the writings of the Early Church Fathers teach theosis or deification, the realization of our human potential for godlikeness through a relational participation in the Divine Life, as the source of our redemption in Christ:

It has been suggested that satisfaction theories of the Atonement and the correlative understanding of the Christian life as a life of interiority became the rule during the long process we call the Constantinian settlement.

Certainly; as Leon Morris noted recently in Christianity Today, «no theory [of the atonement] is adequate....

The view of the atonement that you have been taught (Penal Substitution) is one of four or five major theories on the atonement.

Even at the atonement (and I agree with Jeremy that penal substitutionary theory is not the best explanation of the atonement) the beatings and mockings were perpetrated by the Romans and were not necessarily part of the reconciliation of the world to God.

The metaphor of God's substitution is the only one of the familiar theories of atonement that provides for the full failed weight of human aspiration.

I've begun with a theory of the atonement, like Anselm's, that requires that the savior be both God and a human being.

It has to do with mistaken theories of the Atonement.

What common view of the Second Coming, what central theory of the atonement, what view of the sacraments, what grounding for scriptural authority unites these groups?

This theory of the atonement is particularly associated with Peter Abelard, a brilliant thinker and one of the most colorful of medieval church figures.

The theories of the Atonement so far mentioned are all sometimes called «objective», which is to say that Jesus» death on the cross made an objective factual difference to sin and to human beings» relationship to God.

The response was a violent attack on Bushnell and though his health was broken he applied his theories to the doctrine of the Trinity and to the atonement on the cross.

We may go beyond the traditional theories of atonement and ask a radical question: «What account would be given of atonement if we were to interpret it from the standpoint of the most realistic analogies we know to human love when it deals with broken relationships and the consequent suffering?»

As a Swiss theologian, Paul Wernle, wrote: «How miserably all those finely constructed theories of sacrifice and vicarious atonement crumble to pieces before this faith in the love of God our Father, who so gladly pardons.

All these metaphors have been worked into theories of the atonement in Christian history; but it is remarkable that no single doctrine of atonement has ever become the accepted theory to the exclusion of the others.

An «open letter» from Joel Edwards, general director of the Evangelical Alliance (UK) to those debating the theory of the atonement following the furore... More

Lately something has puzzled and astonished me consciously that had been festering in my mind for many years: How did it happen that one particular theory of the atonement, the so - called Latin or Anselmic or substitutionary or satisfaction theory, came to dominate the entire Christian religion in its Western expression?

Jesus» prayer, «Father forgive them for they know not what they do», not a legalist substitutionary theory of the Atonement, is the biblical Revelation.

Paul's understanding of trust not only shapes his view of atonement; it also informs the apostle's own hermeneutical theory and practice.

Both orthodox and liberal Protestants subscribed to theories of the atonement reflecting their respective visions of Christ's work.

Shailer Matthews once accurately described most theories of atonement as «transcendentalized politics».3 It is God who redeenns man, and what God does can not be identified with any human experience or form, though it penetrates human understanding.

In my earlier discussion I indicated my own preference regarding a «theory» of atonement (Abelard's stress on God's demonstration of the divine Love - in - act, combined with an onto - logical grounding of this in the structure and dynamic of the cosmos).

An abstract discussion of creation, providence, the problem of evil or personal immortality, an abstract presentation of various theories of the atonement or arguments for the existence of God, may leave the hearer unmoved and largely unenlightened.

There have been many other theories of atonement, each picking out what a given generation took to be the worst possible human situation and going on to affirm that in the action of God in Jesus, God met us precisely at that point: slavery to demonic powers, from which we have been delivered; actual slavery to human masters, with manumission accomplished in Christ; guilt for wrongdoing, with Christ as the advocate who pleads for, and secures, our release; corruptibility and mortal death, met in Christ with healing and eternal life....

The «classic» theory as expounded by Aulen is often criticized for neglecting the existential dimension of atonement.

Every profound theory of the atonement has its existential aspect, that is, its way of expressing the concrete human situation and what redeems us from futility.

It has to do with the christus victor theory of the atonement which I find myself moving towards.

I believe it is a defect of most traditional theories of atonement that they obscure the centrality of love in redemption.

Introduction: In Search of a Context «Christologies based on a Europe - centered history, a too narrow or deductive Christ - centered theology, and a church - centered mission tied to classical dogmas about the person of Christ and theories of the atonement, which respond to Western needs, are not only irrelevant to the life of the people but often...