![]() ![]() “I find a lot of this in his book is you know creative revisionist exegesis of some of the texts uh some of his revisionist exegesis is really a rehash of old liberal arguments that want to do away with punitive justice and God’s wrath. ![]() “He says he affirms penal substitution, but he denies that atonement has anything to do with punishment, so he makes this redefinition to say Christ paid our penalty, but he didn’t take our punishment….” While I can’t offer a detailed line-for-line commentary on his interview, I want to correct at least a couple of things that are flatly mistaken. (BTW, I have previously explained why there is no necessary or inherent relationship between the concepts of honor and shame and PSA.) How is Sequeira Mistaken? Sequeira’s gross misrepresentation of my work (and that of others) is not responsible nor does it show charity given that I have labored extensively in numerous places to establish these exact points. are all part of the biblical tapestry of truth. Images that are legal, honor, payment, cultic, purity, etc. Likewise, someone who first hears an “honor-shame message” should most certainly come to understand “law-guilt message” and “fear-power message.”Ĭontrary to Sequeira’s suggestion, I and others absolutely reject any “either-or” proposal when it comes to picking metaphors. Someone who first accepts a “law-guilt message” should also hear an “honor-shame message” and a “fear-power message”. Instead, what many of us have said is that people with different backgrounds often need different entry points to grasp the biblical message. He uses the word “relativize” as if we thought biblical truth was relative. In the podcast and in the Radius talk, he repeated complains that I and others “relativize” penal substitutionary atonement. One of the most misleading ideas he posits deserves attention up front because it’s so fundamental and pervasive. I’ll note problems with Sequeira’s commentary by putting them into 3 categories: mistaken, misleading, and negligent. He argues with certain conclusions already in mind I demonstrate how we need to understand the Bible’s arguments on its own terms such that multiple non-contradictory theories (e.g., penal substitutionary atonement (PSA), Christus Victor, Satisfaction Theory, Ransom Theory, etc.) can all contain biblical truth. ![]() My book offers an exegetical argument grounded in the Old Testament he presents a theological one, with select proof-texting from the New Testament. Sequeira and I’s methodical approach to the topic are different in a significant way. Whereas I thought he previously misrepresented or overstated his case in the series of blog exchanges, I think he is more careful and clearer in this interview than before. His tone is respectful, although his tone during his Radius talk was less so IMO.) Yet, due to his being on a podcast, I recognize he’s limited in how thorough he can be when articulating my view. ![]() To be sure, I think Sequeira did his best to characterize my position as he understood it. (I do provide a video below where I respond “in real time” as I watch the podcast interview.) General Impressions I can’t offer a line-for-line interaction with him, so I’ll simply offer a few initial impressions and replies, if anything, as a way of making sure that listeners hear my actual views and not the somewhat misleading version presented in the interview. On the podcast, Sequeira spent significant time critiquing me and my book The Cross in Context, where I lay out how the biblical authors discuss atonement (in contrast to contemporary theological debates about this or that theory). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |