http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/atonement.htm
I'll note here that this page is an excellent summary of the history of Salvation; the diversity of theories describing the process of redemption, atonement, and salvation has caught even me off guard. Obviously, many of these theories have fallen well off the track of history: strangely, theories like the Socinian and Governmental notions, which worked more on observable details, have faded the most from memory.
From the castrato Origen to the quirky Anselm and beyond, there's a plethora of methods by which one might redeem their soul.
On the one hand, we might see here an historical progression of theological ideas, much as we see in other disciplines of subjective evidence: history, philosophy, &c. To the other, though, is the notion that the Bible should have been "complete" (note the article's third paragraph, which contradicts this), and the idea that apparently the Biblical message is so clear that it has to be revised according to modernity and the philosopher's affectation (this latter is almost unavoidable, and the former is no simple riddle, either).
This is the lighter side of what I mean when I'm railing at Christians to clean up [their] own house first. Whereas I generally rail against the larger offenses--cultural threats, murderous rhetoric, &c.--I feel that much of these detrimental aspects of the religion will melt away when the faithful finally resolve their theology and what it means functionally. In the meantime, it seems a matter of how each individual defines God and the Biblical message, and while this is generally fine, it is my understanding that such a condition is inappropriate for Biblical faith.
Thus I present the article link above, and a general question to the faithful:
* Do any of these theories represent what you have learned of redemption?
* Does faith include familiarity with the personal and historical conditions of a theological idea's developing mind?
* How does one, in the modern faith climate, resolve the issue of clarity amid myriad interpetations of what is supposed to be quite clear?
And other questions of perspective. It seems that with so much work done in the past, it's all a waste of time: modern faith rejects old solutions out of hand in many cases, which speaks to a transitory and evolving--that is, not fixed--nature of God's message. This seems a relatively unorthodox result, and makes little functional sense to observe: it seems more an act of fancy.
Commentary and response, obviously, are encouraged. But there it is, in all its two-cent glory.
thanx,
Tiassa
Edit note: I have reworded the second question italicized above; it was dreadfully vague, then, and merely akward now.
I'll note here that this page is an excellent summary of the history of Salvation; the diversity of theories describing the process of redemption, atonement, and salvation has caught even me off guard. Obviously, many of these theories have fallen well off the track of history: strangely, theories like the Socinian and Governmental notions, which worked more on observable details, have faded the most from memory.
From the castrato Origen to the quirky Anselm and beyond, there's a plethora of methods by which one might redeem their soul.
On the one hand, we might see here an historical progression of theological ideas, much as we see in other disciplines of subjective evidence: history, philosophy, &c. To the other, though, is the notion that the Bible should have been "complete" (note the article's third paragraph, which contradicts this), and the idea that apparently the Biblical message is so clear that it has to be revised according to modernity and the philosopher's affectation (this latter is almost unavoidable, and the former is no simple riddle, either).
This is the lighter side of what I mean when I'm railing at Christians to clean up [their] own house first. Whereas I generally rail against the larger offenses--cultural threats, murderous rhetoric, &c.--I feel that much of these detrimental aspects of the religion will melt away when the faithful finally resolve their theology and what it means functionally. In the meantime, it seems a matter of how each individual defines God and the Biblical message, and while this is generally fine, it is my understanding that such a condition is inappropriate for Biblical faith.
Thus I present the article link above, and a general question to the faithful:
* Do any of these theories represent what you have learned of redemption?
* Does faith include familiarity with the personal and historical conditions of a theological idea's developing mind?
* How does one, in the modern faith climate, resolve the issue of clarity amid myriad interpetations of what is supposed to be quite clear?
And other questions of perspective. It seems that with so much work done in the past, it's all a waste of time: modern faith rejects old solutions out of hand in many cases, which speaks to a transitory and evolving--that is, not fixed--nature of God's message. This seems a relatively unorthodox result, and makes little functional sense to observe: it seems more an act of fancy.
Commentary and response, obviously, are encouraged. But there it is, in all its two-cent glory.
thanx,
Tiassa
Edit note: I have reworded the second question italicized above; it was dreadfully vague, then, and merely akward now.
Last edited: