Showing posts with label Atonement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Atonement. Show all posts
Thursday, August 28, 2025

How is that possible?

›
The righteous requirements of the Law have been met in him in order that the righteous requirements of the Law might be met fully in us . T...

What about the scandal?

›
In the theology of the cross, the theme of recapitulation ranks high in value. However, there is one problem. Recapitulation alone cannot fu...
Wednesday, August 20, 2025

But is it biblical?

›
The preachers and teachers of penal substitution forced the biblical tapestry of motifs into a narrowly defined, schematic, rationalistic — a...
Wednesday, July 23, 2025

Setting things right

›
If the ransom saying of Mark 10:45 is allowed full rein as a fluid, suggestive metaphor, rather than a rigidly schematic transaction, we are ...
Friday, July 18, 2025

About that little Greek word hilasterion

›
[I]t should now be generally agreed that any concept of hilasterion in the sense of placating, appeasing, deflecting the anger of, or satisf...
Thursday, January 25, 2024

Etymology matters sometimes

›
The word “atonement” can be traced back to 1526, when the English writer William Tyndale (ca. 1494-1536) was confronted with the task of tra...
Wednesday, January 24, 2024

Ransom? The whom is it paid?

›
The New Testament nowhere suggests that Jesus’ death was the price paid to someone (such as the devil) to achieve our liberation. Some patri...
Friday, December 08, 2023

Early theories of atonement (hint: there weren't any)

›
It is interesting that the Christian doctrine that Christ atoned for human sin through his death and resurrection did not, unlike such doctr...
Tuesday, August 29, 2023

Inerrancy, again!

›
I just ran across this post on inerrancy and Russell Moore’s book. Go ahead and read it. I'll wait. Good. She definitely is no fan of ...
Tuesday, June 13, 2023

Wrath? Love? Which is it? (Brunner)

›
God’s wrath cannot be compared with God’s love; for God’s love is His nature, but His wrath is never, and in no sense, His nature. It is His...

Anselm's theory of atonement and its flaws (Brunner)

›
Anselm’s theory of “satisfaction” claims to be an adequate, completely sufficient expression, which does not need to be complemented by any o...
Monday, June 12, 2023

The necessity of the cross

›
In their different ways they [the theories of atonement ] all want to say two things: owing to Sin, man’s situation in relation to God is da...
Wednesday, August 05, 2020

What is the gospel?

›
The Gospel: An Outline Jesus the king 1. preexisted with the Father, 2. took on human flesh, fulfilling God’s promises to David, 3. died...
Tuesday, July 28, 2020

Just a part, not the whole!

›
That Jesus died for our sins and, as a portion of that “our,” that he also died for my sins is truly part of the gospel—emphatically so!—bu...
1 comment:
Saturday, January 11, 2020

Once more, round the web

›
Are you a teacher and had a bad week? I remember those—especially when I was teaching high school! Take a look at this post for some encour...
Tuesday, October 17, 2017

What does it take?

›
Intercessory prayer in itself may not have atoning value (cf. Jer 15:1), if, however, the prayer is a reflection of God’s will and intention...
Monday, October 16, 2017

Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 in tandem

›
From a canonical perspective, both Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 provide important hermeneutical keys for the church to understand the suffering, d...
Friday, October 13, 2017

What happened?

›
Isaiah 53 does not only testify to the prophet’s suffering, but it also provides the reason as to why God restores the covenant relationship...
Wednesday, October 11, 2017

Active prayer

›
[V]erbal intercessory prayer and intercession in the sense of vicarious suffering and death are not exclusive categories but rather they are...
Thursday, April 02, 2015

About that atonement thing

›
Holy Week can produce some of the worst in theology sometimes, but it can also produce some of the best. Brian Zahnd's post is in the l...