Mîine seară despre metaforele mîntuirii.
“Recognition of god-language as fundamentally metaphorical does not mean that it does not have a referent, and that some at least of the metaphors may not actually possess a particular appropriateness to this referent. In fact, metaphors are themselves mini-stories, suggesting ways of looking at a reality which cannot be reduced to terms of the metaphor itself.” N. T. Wright
According to Gordon Fee Paul’s language of redemption, propitiation, reconciliation, etc. is metaphorical because, „for Paul salvation is an especially theological reality, in the sense that it is both a reflection of God’s character and the result of God’s initiative.”  In as far as salvation is a reflection of God’s character it is incomprehensible to finite man. However, this does not mean that nothing can be known for certain concerning the realities of Christ’s work but that „God’s majesty in itself far outstrips the capacity of human understanding and cannot even be comprehended by it at all …”  Neither is the appeal to metaphor a sly way of reducing the meaning of Paul’s language to mere signs. N.T. Wright affirms this idea, „Recognition of god-language as fundamentally metaphorical does not mean that it does not have a referent, and that some at least of the metaphors may…
Vezi articolul original 715 cuvinte mai mult