Categories: uncategorized
Date: 10 October 2005 20:21:47
Impressive; that sort of leap doesn't happen every day...
Thanks for the comments. It's definitely an area where I need to do some reading rather than thinking 'oo yeah I wonder about that?' to myself every now and then. The Nietzsche might be a bit of a leap (haven't read him since college!) but the idea is interesting. I understand (I think) the view of the cross as a tragic murder but I do think that there has to be more _intent_ (if that is the right word) behind it. One of the things that bothers me about penal subsitution as the primary interpretation of the cross is that it seems to diminish the resurrection, which is surely the key.... I am very much attached to the notion of Christ kicking death's backside good and proper, as demonstrated by Easter Sunday. If the primary purpose of the cross was to satisfy God's wrath through Christ's sacrifice, then His *death* on the cross *in itself* fulfills that. But we have the resurrection also, so there must be more to it. To add it as a footnote - "oh and by the way He rose again because He was God and couldn't stay dead" - just can't be right. (And I surely can't be the only person who's heard sermons or 'presentations of the gospel' with exactly that sort of footnote?)
Thanks for the book recommendation Jack, sounds like a good one, and I will add it to the list. In the meantime, here: http://www.oasistrust.org/temp/RedeemingspthespCross.pdf is a piece by Steve Chalke about his book, produced after it was published and his world (I imagine) went a bit nuts for a while.
The thing is, of course, having heard one of my pastors expound the view that the satisfaction of God's wrath is *the* primary thing happening at the cross, and that if you don't believe that, your Christianity is pretty shaky, where will all this lead me?