Twitter Tweets
My TweetsFollow on Facebook
Recent Comments
dianelos on The Natural Desire for God: Po… thomascothran on The Natural Desire for God: Po… Logan(mercifullayman… on The Natural Desire for God: Po… Fr Aidan Kimel on The Natural Desire for God: Po… Geoffrey on The Natural Desire for God: Po… Logan(mercifullayman… on The Natural Desire for God: Po… Fr Aidan Kimel on A Matter of Taste: A Review of… Logan(mercifullayman… on A Matter of Taste: A Review of… Fr Aidan Kimel on A Matter of Taste: A Review of… Wes on A Matter of Taste: A Review of… -
Recent Posts
Categories
- Alexander Earl
- Apostle Paul
- Aquinas
- Athanasius
- Basil of Caesarea
- Bible
- Book Reviews
- Brian Moore
- Byzantine theology
- Citations
- Cyril of Alexandria
- Dante
- David B. Hart
- Dionysius the Areopagite
- Dumitru Staniloae
- Eschatology
- Fiction & Poetry
- Grace, Justification & Theosis
- Gregory Nazianzen
- Gregory of Nyssa
- Herbert McCabe & Friends
- Holy Trinity
- Hugh McCann
- Humor
- Inklings & Company
- Interesting Theologians
- Irenaeus
- Isaac the Syrian
- Islam
- John Stamps
- Jordan Wood
- Julian of Norwich
- Lamentation
- Liturgy & Sermons
- Mark Chenoweth
- Mythopoeia
- Nicholas Wolfterstorff
- Paul Griffiths
- Personal
- Philosophical Theology
- Preaching
- Robert Farrar Capon
- Robert Fortuin
- Robert Jenson
- Sacraments
- Sergius Bulgakov
- Spirituality
- T. F. Torrance
- T. S. Eliot
- Theology
- Theotokos
- Thomas Talbott
- Tom Belt
- Uncategorized
- Vincent of Lérins
- Zizioulas & Yannaras
Archives
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
Robert W. Jenson on the Atonement
This entry was posted in Robert Jenson. Bookmark the permalink.
Do you think there is a consonance between EO theology and the work of theologians like Jenson, influenced by Barth?
LikeLike
As deeply influenced at Jens was by Barth, he is not a Barthian. He drew on many sources, including Eastern theologians (esp Gregory of Nyssa). Eastern Orthodox theologians will no doubt object to specific aspects of his theology (e.g., his interpretation of the temporality of God), but they will (or at least should) welcome the conversation.
LikeLike
I’m not an expert, but is Jenson actually right in his criticism that either Abelard’s ideas of the atonement or the “patristic” ideas ignore or sideline the resurrection? And is it me, or has he got the “patristic” atonement theory quite significantly wrong?
The cross as moral exemplar is surely nonsensical without the resurrection, since if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead the moral of the story would be exactly what the authorities executing him intended it to be: “Don’t be like Jesus, it will get you very painfully killed.” It is only because Jesus rose from the dead that we are invited to share in his victory rather than learn a salutary lesson from his defeat.
My understanding of the “patristic” theory is that its central point is the “harrowing of hell”, the descent of Christ to the dead to rescue those imprisoned there, bringing them back with him again when he rose again in glory. Jensen seems to have missed this out entirely in his description. It is missing this out that obscures what I understand is the centrality of the resurrection to the whole thing, which is that Christ’s rising from the dead destroyed death for everyone, with the defeat of the various other “powers and principalities” etc something of a sideshow or mopping up operation, rather than the main event.
Or am I getting this wrong?
LikeLike
I’ve never read Abelard, so I do not know if Jenson has him right or not. On the other hand, he taught systematics for years at the Lutheran Seminary in Gettysburg, so I’m thinking that he probably does accurately describe him.
LikeLike
Jenson, I’m sure, was well aware that the Eastern understanding of atonement was far more profound than the metaphor of Christ dangling on a hook waiting for Satan to swallow it. At this point he was probably just relying on Aulen’s ‘Christus Victor.’ I agree with you that he should have elaborated upon this in this lecture.
LikeLiked by 1 person