Saturday, November 2, 2013

Isaiah 53

Heather Celoria forwarded me a simple, but fascinating article on Isaiah 53.  The title is "Punished 'for' or 'by' our sins — The Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53," by Santo Calarco.  Here is the link.

http://www.clarion-journal.com/clarion_journal_of_spirit/2013/10/punished-for-or-by-our-sins-the-suffering-servant-of-isaiah-53-santo-calarco.html#

6 comments:

Forrest Malloch said...

I've always struggled with the penal substitution doctrine - and it is very good to be educated on why I had those struggles!

Heather Celoria said...

We are having quite a conversation about this article...feel free to join in, anyone ;-)

Heather Celoria said...

https://www.facebook.com/jason.jolin.9/posts/608186375914854?comment_id=5116542&notif_t=like

Dustin Pratt said...

I completely agree. I am currently in seminary and am writing a paper on atonement. I was wondering if there is a specific name for the theory of atonement that Baxter believes? It's nice to say the penal substitutionary theory is off, but I need something to give in place of it that is "on".

As far as my research goes, my best guess for a name is "Trinitarian Theory of Atonement" but I don't know if this is an actual thing. Haha. Perhaps "Universal Election" as from Barth or "Transformational Atonement" -- Jesus doesn't change God, he changes you. Thanks for the help!

Tony said...

Definitely a great article. I first began to think this way after reading Baxter's book, Across All World." It was a real eye opener. It has been refreshing to be able to see the Lord in this light, His true nature, which is love. And that has been life changing for me. Thanks for sharing this one Baxter.

Anonymous said...

Dustin asked what to call this theory of Atonement. I see it having elements of what is cometimes called the "Chrisus Victor" theory--that is that Jesus triumphed fully over all tht Satan had done to block God's designs for humanity. Others have simply called this view the "Historic" view of the Atonement because it includes so meany elements of the thinking of the earliest (patristic) theologians. I think this view is somewhat like what Joel Green was talking about when in a brief response to aa article in Christianity Today that chastized him and others for having rejected "substitution," he said that he believed fully in the substitutionary atomement of Jesus, just not in PENAL substitution. DT Gregory