Sure, they can debate which image ought to be primary, but everyone agrees that all of Scripture’s images are crucial. Both Schreiner and Boyd argue forcefully for the primacy of their positions, but both repeatedly acknowledge that Scripture uses many images for the atonement, and that neglecting any of them creates a deficiency in a Christian’s understanding of Christ’s work.Īt one level, then, the argument upon which this book is built isn’t all that it’s trumped up to be. For example, Reichenbach himself doesn’t seem to argue for the primacy of his healing model, causing Schreiner to wonder if he somehow misunderstood the purpose of the book (149). Some of these tensions show up throughout the book. Also, given Scripture’s many-colored presentation of the atonement, doesn’t Green’s “kaleidoscope” idea automatically take the pole position? Why would anyone argue with that? Wright explaining how atonement works in the New Perspective? That’s one of the more pressing outstanding questions in the New Perspective, and it would have been interesting to have included someone from that camp.
Why Bruce Reichenbach on healing? Medical imagery is used of the atonement in Scripture, but have many people argued that it is primary? Why not N.T. Looking over this list, one of the first things that comes to mind is that the selection of perspectives seems a bit random. WILL THE REAL DEBATE PLEASE STEP FORWARD? And Joel Green promotes a “kaleidoscope” understanding in which no one image takes precedence over the others. Bruce Reichenbach focuses on medical (or healing) images. Tom Schreiner argues for penal substitution. Another in the “four-views” series of books, James Beilby and Paul Eddy’s The Nature of the Atonement brings together four authors to discuss the question, “What image or understanding of the atonement does Scripture present as primary?” Greg Boyd argues for the primacy of the Christus Victor theme.
0 kommentar(er)
