Sometime back Howard wrote to ask, “How and when did Arminianism become the predominate view?” That’s a good question. First, we should distinguish between Jacob Arminius (James Hermanzoon) and the Arminians (or the Remonstrants). Relative to the conclusions Arminian/Remonstrant theology later reached, Arminius . . . Continue reading →
Martin explains the connection.
Part 1 When I say “moralists” I mean primarily the doctrine that God justifies the sanctified because they are sanctified or that we are justified by grace and cooperation with grace. This is the bottom line of the NPP. Justification is re-defined . . . Continue reading →
Most modern NT study of Paul tends to be myopic. The “history of exegesis” tends to go back to the 1970s and occasionally a little farther. This isn’t my assessment, it’s Tom Wright’s. I agree with him. I tried recently to do . . . Continue reading →
At Justin Taylor’s BTW.
Todd has an excellent introduction.
Here’s a nice summary by Donald John MacLean.
Alan Jacobs blogs on this topic and has, as always, an interesting post about what e-texts can and can’t do.
Wes Bredenhof is surveying Guido (Guy) de Bres’ 1555 reply to Rome, The Staff of the Christian Faith. This is an interesting document as it’s mostly a series of patristic quotations showing how the Reformation agreed with the early fathers—thereby subverting the . . . Continue reading →
Dan’s at it again. He’s been reading sources.
Wes has some helpful source material on this topic. He begins with a survey on my chapter on the distinction between theology as God knows it (theologia archetypa) and theology as it is revealed to us (theologia ectypa). In the second half of . . . Continue reading →
Thanks to the Reformed Fellowship (HT: Confessional Outhouse)
Bavinck had some interesting things to say.
This is a really interesting piece by Erskine College prof. William B. Evans at Ref21. Barth’s dialectical method makes him inherently difficult. He can always be quoted on two sides of an issue. I also agree with Evans that, in the end, . . . Continue reading →
The question came up on the PB whether Zwingli gets a bum rap on the Supper. It’s true that Zwingli has on the receiving end of the stick. This has provoked a reaction, led most recently by W. P. (Peter) Stephens in . . . Continue reading →
If you only want to attend the conference in Geneva, now there’s a way.
Thanks to Justin for alerting us to this book.
We call it Marxism. Alan Jacobs posts a fascinating quote illustrating this phenomenon. This is timely as we were just discussing the Marxist historians last week in HT501.
Todd explains.
He reviews it here.