I would be interested in how the group views the idea of the Atonement. Certainly there is a transactional element to that which has been presented by all elements of the historic church. Yes, I know of the various theories, but why was it necessary in light of this conversation? Without being reductionist, is it just a symbol of death having no sting, did Jesus need to be killed in order to conquer death because Jesus as perfect human could never have a natural death. Or is it a propitiation for sin, in a transactional sense. Just thinking.
Jason, Todd, Josh, Johanna, Marty, and Tony: I didn’t know who you all were, but it has sure been nice getting to know you all through these recorded discussions. These are so frickin’ enjoyable. Thank you.
Jason, I share your love of Jenson and especially his reworking of time building on Barth. You talked some in this discussion about putting Jesus back into the Godhead from all eternity, and that Jesus is in the godhead before he is in Mary’s womb. I wonder what you would make of this head-scratcher from Jenson:
“The life of the biblical God cannot be located on any ‘time-line’; that is, it cannot be laid out on any story’s bottom level of time-bars. Thus it makes no sense to ask what was happening ‘before’ the inner-triune begetting of the Son, as was recognized at Nicea. And by the very same token, it makes no sense to ask what things in God were like ‘before’ Mary conceived–even if it makes perfect and necessary sense to ask what eternity must be like for the Son to be born in time of a woman.”
I would be interested in how the group views the idea of the Atonement. Certainly there is a transactional element to that which has been presented by all elements of the historic church. Yes, I know of the various theories, but why was it necessary in light of this conversation? Without being reductionist, is it just a symbol of death having no sting, did Jesus need to be killed in order to conquer death because Jesus as perfect human could never have a natural death. Or is it a propitiation for sin, in a transactional sense. Just thinking.
This was great. Marty is wonderful to listen to and has such a great way of explaining things (as do you of course).... but Marty was just stellar.
Jason, Todd, Josh, Johanna, Marty, and Tony: I didn’t know who you all were, but it has sure been nice getting to know you all through these recorded discussions. These are so frickin’ enjoyable. Thank you.
Jason, I share your love of Jenson and especially his reworking of time building on Barth. You talked some in this discussion about putting Jesus back into the Godhead from all eternity, and that Jesus is in the godhead before he is in Mary’s womb. I wonder what you would make of this head-scratcher from Jenson:
“The life of the biblical God cannot be located on any ‘time-line’; that is, it cannot be laid out on any story’s bottom level of time-bars. Thus it makes no sense to ask what was happening ‘before’ the inner-triune begetting of the Son, as was recognized at Nicea. And by the very same token, it makes no sense to ask what things in God were like ‘before’ Mary conceived–even if it makes perfect and necessary sense to ask what eternity must be like for the Son to be born in time of a woman.”
(Theology as Revisionary Metaphysics, p. 99)
Thanks for the document. What pages should we read before listening?
Section 33- The Election of Jesus Christ. We’re doing 5 Pages at a time.