RSSWhat the world needs now …
Daniel Howe
Is the ransom theory of the atonement, properly understood.
In some ways, Christendom reflects the impact of the ransom theory, and the arid, apolitical version of Christianity hawked by some (even in the name of Old School Presbyterianism) focuses on the satisfaction theory without sufficient interaction with the ransom theory.
Get me? Thoughts?
J. Schoe
April 5th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
What precisely do you mean? Doesn’t Original School Presbyterianism highlight this in their emphasis on the mediatorial reign of Christ? But this isn’t a theory of the Atonement properly speaking, but of the Office of Christ. Do yo mean mean the Ransom Theory or Christus Victor?
“It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and man, the Prophet, Priest, and King, the Head and Savior of His Church, the Heir of all things, and Judge of the world: unto whom He did from all eternity give a people, to be His seed, and to be by Him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.”
“Neither do I beleive, that the Magistrate is not subordinate to the Kingdom of Christ, as mediator, but subordinate to God as Creator only.”
—Samuel Rutherfurd, The Due Right of Presbyteries. (1644).
“I know that some believe that the headship or dominion of Christ the Mediator, is confined to the church, but we are fully persuaded that this is neither the doctrine of the Bible, nor of our Subordinate Standards.”
–John McAuley. (1863).
“…there is another king, one Jesus.” Acts 17:7
“And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.” Rev 11:15
J. Schoe
April 5th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
“yo” yo, you
nasteffe
April 9th, 2007 at 12:22 am
Daniel,
Tom Wright might suggest that what we really need is a fuller understanding of resurrection. Here’s a selection of and a link to an article on that precise topic and how that connects to our political involvement.
“Professor Oliver O’Donovan, now of Edinburgh University, has recently argued that ‘judgment’ is the primary political act, in other words, that what governments and rulers seek to do is to draw lines in the sand, to make decisions, which bring a measure of order to the world – and that, from a Christian point of view, these actions are to be understood as partial anticipations of the time when God, through Jesus Christ, draws the final lines in the sand and sets the whole cosmos to rights at last. If that is correct, then not only does what we vaguely call ‘religion’ belong most firmly and certainly within the public sphere, but it is the task in particular of those who believe in Jesus Christ to announce his judgment both in and through particular political and judicial decisions and also upon those decisions themselves, since they themselves partake systemically of the very injustice which they are trying to address.†(emphasis is my own)
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/sermons/Easter07.htm
Daniel Howe
April 9th, 2007 at 8:06 am
Nicely put. To answer Schoe: Christus Victor, but I think the differences are not very great. Query: “‘yo’ yo,you”???
One of the undeveloped points in the satisfaction theory is its take on the resurrection. If satisfaction exhausts the significance of the cross, the resurrection shows that “it’s okay after all, Jesus didn’t stay dead” but doesn’t do much more than that.
But the NT writers specifically view Jesus’ resurrection as a triumph over spiritual and political powers!