arapahoepark
Puritan Board Professor
It seems to be a 'thing' lately to criticize theologians, lay people, etc. for interpreting the Bible through a 'western, juridical and individualistic' (even modern) lens, that supposedly goes back to Augustine only to be picked up Luther. One of my criticisms of Tom Holland's work on Paul's theology is that he seems to find everything that Paul says as corporate virtually at the expense of individual application. It was the Gentiles who were called to exercise he says, yet seemingly leaving out the obvious individual implications...
Many who reject Penal Substitution or argue for the new perspective tend use these very arguments. Rather they advocate a 'eastern and corporate honor/shame' reading of the Scriptures and calling cultures and not necessarily individuals to loyalty (not faith per se).
Yet, after all, only individuals repent, and have faith and they make up societies and communities. Jesus says he came to bring a sword relating that families will be torn up based upon an individual's faith.
How does refute this further? Is it both/and? Most obviously, the Gospel has ramifications for both individuals and groups.
Many who reject Penal Substitution or argue for the new perspective tend use these very arguments. Rather they advocate a 'eastern and corporate honor/shame' reading of the Scriptures and calling cultures and not necessarily individuals to loyalty (not faith per se).
Yet, after all, only individuals repent, and have faith and they make up societies and communities. Jesus says he came to bring a sword relating that families will be torn up based upon an individual's faith.
How does refute this further? Is it both/and? Most obviously, the Gospel has ramifications for both individuals and groups.