Heresy v. Unorthodoxy
An intriguing little observation is tucked away in Packer and Dever's "In My Place Condemned He Stood" on why they won't refer to the current unhelpful models of the atonement as "heresies":
We shall not, however, be calling it heresy, for this term today combines maximum fuzziness of meaning with maximum vituperative emotional heat. Such a word is literally too hot to handle in what purports to be sober analysis. We shall speak instead of unorthodoxy, a word that seems to us both more exact and less explosive. (page 17)
Interesting.
Which current unhelpful models of the atonement are you talking about?
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Posted by: Donald Johnson | Apr 22, 2008 12:01:10 PM
hey don,
the book labels them together as "anti-redemptionism". i think drs. packer and dever are speaking about anything that does not affirm penal substitution as the center and ground of the atonement. so i think abelard and grotius and mcknight are officially on notice...
mike
Posted by: Mike McKinley | Apr 23, 2008 10:22:32 AM
thanks, not having the book, I was lost on the context.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Posted by: Donald Johnson | Apr 23, 2008 11:08:00 AM