The problem for atonement theory is the problem it resolves. In other words, atonement theory is designed to \u201cfix\u201d the problem, and we often describe the problem as sin. But, what is sin? And with it comes the trailer: What are its effects (impacts)? And that raises the issue of total depravity. The problem for atonement theory is the problem it resolves. In other words, atonement theory is designed to \u201cfix\u201d the problem, and we often describe the problem as sin. But, what is sin? And with it comes the trailer: What are its effects (impacts)? And that raises the issue of total depravity.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":197,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1744],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1238","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-atonement"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nSo the problem is the problem<\/em>.
\nHere\u2019s my contention with you today: most define the problem in exclusively individualistic<\/em> terms. To define the problem (sin) in exclusively individualistic terms results in an individualistic atonement theory and an individualistic redemption. And we are tempted over and over to define sin narrowly as individual act, but sin (as we will begin to see tomorrow) is a term for a spectrum of deed and state and consequences. We\u2019ll be helped in our discussion by Mark Biddle\u2019s fine book, Missing the Mark<\/em>.
\nJohn Goldingay, who has more good ideas than most, has a nice piece on how \u201csin\u201d is described in the Bible: rebellion, infidelity, disloyalty, ingratitude, getting dirty, wandering, trespass, transgression, and failure ( \u201cmissing the mark\u201d). (See Atonement Today<\/em>, 39-45.)
\nIt follows then that the problem concerns the human response to God (not just his will), but the problem, as all theologies show, involves not only the individual sin but the impact sin makes: distortion of relationship in all four directions \u2014 with God, with self, with others, and with the world.
\nIn my terms, cracked Eikons do cracked things and create cracked systemic conditions.
\nSo big is sin that the Reformed theologian, Cornelius Plantinga #2, defines sin as \u201cculpable shalom-breaking.\u201d This isn\u2019t a shallow trope \u2014 this is a profound perception. The problem, in its essence, is hyper-relational distortion in all directions that distorts everything around us.
\nThe problem is what happens with our self, with others, and with the world, each of which reflects our problem with God. If sin, the problem, begins with our relation to God, it involves our relation to self, to others, and the world.
\nNow we are face-to-face with our problem: if the problem is hyper-relational distortion, then atonement \u201cfixes\u201d that hyper-relational distortion. If sin is relational, so also is atonement. If we define sin as nothing more than offense of the Law, then atonement is nothing more than wiping the offense clean. But, will this do? I don\u2019t think the Bible lets us reduce the problem to offense and therefore it does not let us reduce atonement to offense-rectification.
\nIt\u2019s bigger than that, but we only figure this out if we realize that the problem is the problem, and we\u2019ve got to figure out just what this problem is.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"