The Glory of the Atonement - Theological Discussion Group Next Thursday!!!

I know that I'm stealing the title of this post from a book by that name, edited by Charles E. Hill and Frank A. James III, but it says so well what I feel after having spent a week teaching Christology and ending with reflections on the atonement. The beautiful realities of what we have because of Christ's work on our behalf are indeed glorious and Scripture describes those realities in a myriad of ways. It seems to me that God revealed the glory of the atonement with so many images because none of them, standing alone, can capture that glory completely. But not everyone agrees with such an assessment. In my limited investigations, the larger part of contemporary evangelical theology seems to think that one of the images must serve as a controlling paradigm for all the rest. Here are a few examples that show this to be true:

Robert Letham, in his The Work of Christ from the IVP Contours of Christian Theology series, wonderfully describes 9 aspects of the the atonement that illustrate how magnificent was Christ's work on the cross. But only when he comes to the idea of penal substitution does he speak so categorically. "At the heart of the biblical doctrine of atonement is the idea of penal substitution." (p. 132)

In IVP's The Nature of the Atonement, edited by James Beilby and Paul R. Eddy, three of the four contributing authors promote a different atonement image as the controlling paradigm. Greg Boyd says that the Christus Victor motif should serve that role. "All models of the atonement can be understood as distinctive aspects of one thing: overcoming evil with good ... Yes, Jesus died in our place, brought about or forgiveness, [and did all of the other things that various other atonement models proclaim that he did on the cross]. But, I submit, all these marvelous aspects of Christ's work can be understood, and are best understood, as distinctive aspects of the "rich variety" of God's "secret and hidden" wisdom by which he overcame evil with good and calls us to the same." (p. 45)

In the same work, Joel Green seems to show the promise of a view that would integrate the various models in his "kaleidoscopic view." However, in his other writings, in the formal presentation of his view and in his response to Thomas Schreiner's "penal substitutionary view," Green seems, at times to downplay, at times to reject the penal substitutionary view altogether. He says that the penal substitutionary view doesn't have the support of Church history, is based on an improper understanding of God's wrath, causes the inter-trinitarian life of God to break down, plus a whole host of other weaknesses that leave one thinking that the penal substitutionary view has no warrant being in the kaleidoscope. This integrative theory leaves a bit to be desired.

And so, when we come to next week's theological discussion group, be prepared to discuss which theory of the atonement should have pride of place among the others, if indeed you think that one should. Between now and then I plan to read Henri Blocher's, "Biblical Metaphors and the Doctrine of the Atonement" in the December 2004 issue of JETS. I'll be as prepared as possible to propose that a fully integrative atonement theory does the most justice to the glory of the atonement, but I'll be ready to be convinced otherwise. See you next Thursday.

I have been there

Some of you may have seen this already, but here is a quick video about cross-cultural communication. A pastor guy is preaching and a man from another country is translating. Just a reminder of how silly we Americans behave and how important it is to learn the language of the people we are speaking to.



And just for the grins of it, here is a video from the Expelled movie evolution creation thing that is pretty good. The faces that appear during the song are all famous atheists like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Eugenie Scott, PZ Myers and a few more.

The Universe in One Year

Here is a little thing I did some time ago regarding the age of the universe. The idea comes from Carl Sagan who did it first. The most current estimate of the age of the universe according to secular scientists is 13.7 billion years. I know that some in the group agree with and most probably disagree with this estimate. Please feel free to use this information to argue either for or against the idea. But because 13.7 billion years is such a long time, it is difficult to get a sense of the relationship of early to current history. So I overlay the 13.7 billion on top of a year to get a proportional sense. Please feel free to correct the math if I made a mistake.

Assuming that the earth is 13.7 billion years old:
Then January first at 0:00 midnight begins the time period.

37,534,246.6 years is equivalent to one day.
1,563,926.9 years is equivalent to one hour.
26,065.4 years is equivalent to one minute.
And 434.42 years is equivalent to one second.

In the standard version of universal history, the earth was formed roughly 4.55 billion years ago. On the one-year calendar, that would mean that the earth was formed on September 1^st.

Larger than microscopic animals arose just before the Cambrian period some 542 million years ago, which in our calendar begins on December 18^th.

The dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago, which would be during the day on December 30^th.

Jesus died on the cross roughly at 30 AD. On our calendar, that would be on December 31st at 11:59:55 PM.

Augustine lived on that same last day at 11:59:56 PM, and the Reformation was at 11:59:59 PM.

Well, there's a lot here. The most fascinating bits are, of course, that the earth doesn't even arrive on the scene until 8 full months have passed, and anything resembling animals doesn't show up until well into December. People don't show up until around the last 10 to 20 minutes of the last hour of the last day of the year. Crazy.

What would the theological implications of that "empty" time be if this were the true account of creation? Or does this simply show how that this version of the history of the universe cannot possibly be true according to the Bible and Christian theology?

Wright's response to Piper

Wanted to let folks who did not see it, there is a link on the N. T. Wright web page to an interview Wright gave at Asbury seminary. Ben Witherington was seated next to him along with a moderator and an older man, I think the president of the school or dean or something. Anyway, the interview is great, and in it, Wright responds to Piper's book critiquing Wright's view of justification. You can go to the link by clicking here, and then simply play the video.

Website Copier

Here is a recommended program that has been helpful to me. I visit some websites that are really archives, large collections of articles, like John Piper's website or the Talkorigins Archive. Slowly over time I check out quite a few of these articles, but there are times when I am not connected to the internet but would still like to be able to read at my own leisure.

Well, there is a program that is free to download that I have used called HTTrack website copier. Go to this link and you can download it. I don't know everything about how to use a lot of its features, but I have downloaded a few collections and it is helpful for me to have. So just a recommendation. Perhaps the more computer savvy could point out something dangerous here, but I have enjoyed using it.

Larry Norman

I don't know how meaningful this will be to many of you, but I was a little saddened to learn that Larry Norman died last Sunday night. He had apparently been sick for some time. I have listened to Larry Norman since I was very young, from "I wish we'd all been ready" to "Watch what you're doin'". He was kinda wild, a little wierd (especially after the accident and head injury), but he was a pioneer in Christian music. I am glad he is home with his Lord.

Hermeneutics Quiz

Here is a hermeneutics quiz that I saw over at Scot McKnight's blog called the Jesus Creed. You can go to it by clicking here.