Monday, October 13, 2008

JI Packer on the atonement


Packer's classic 1973 essay 'What did the cross achieve?' is a terrific corrective to what he calls 'rationalistic' versions of atonement theology of both conservative and non-conservative types. Some of the most interesting stuff comes at the beginning of the essay when he puts out some methodological insights...


Thus:


Here as elsewhere methodological rationalism became in the seventeenth century a worm in the Reformed bud, leading in the next two centuries to a large-scale withering of its theological flower. p. 5


Packer asks 'what sort of knowledge of God's actuon in Christ's death may we have?' (p. 6)


The answer.. is faith-knowledge: by faith we know that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. Yes, indeed, but what sort of knowledge is faith-knowledge? It is a kind of knowledge of which God is both giver and content. It is a Spirit-given acquaintance with divine realities, given through acquaintance with God's word. ....it is a unique kind of knowledge which, though real, is not full; it is knowledge of what is discernible within a circle of light against the background of a larger darkness; it is, in short, knowledge of a mystery, the mystery of the living God at work.

4 comments:

Matthew Moffitt said...

I hear that Packer may be coming out to Sydney next year...

Mike W said...

Thanks mike. I really liked Packers critique of viewing PSA as a 'mechanism'. I've found myself slipping into something closer to Forsyth view recently, so this was a good kick in the pants.

Where do you stand with the whole question of the centrality of this model?

michael jensen said...

well: 'centrality' is a spacial metaphor. Do we mean that it is the hub around which all the other models turn? Do we mean that other models are on the periphery somehow? I do think because of the attacks on this doctrine, evangelicals have made it into the ONLY model, and equated it with the gospel. This is not quite right.

I will say this: PSA is the model without which the other models lack coherence (it seems to me) and moral force. So, central, but not singular.

Matthew Moffitt said...

Thanks for that last comment MPJ, very helpful.