Roger Olson:

I will take the risk of putting forth a theory here.  It seems likely to me that whenever and wherever and to the extent that the objective view of the atonement (viz., that the death of Christ reconciled God to the world as much as the world to God) diminishes, the cross will diminish in importance for worship and piety.  A subjective theory of the atonement will not do; it cannot sustain long term, profound commitment to the gospel of the death of Jesus Christ as our salvation.

In this paragraph, what does ‘objective’ mean?  Is Olson saying that Jesus’ death has to be magical in order to be real?  That if God wasn’t willing to kiss and make up until the Romans crucified his son, then that crucifixion was an experience, but not… an exterior object?

I read this.  If you can do better, I’d like to know.

About Dhouda

"And what shall I say, fragile vessel that I am? I shall turn to others as a friend." Dhouda's Manual, AD 841
This entry was posted in Love. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s