At Historical Theoblogy
The 17th-century Reformed didn’t “narrow” Reformed theology, they broadened it and made it deeper and more catholic. He likes Danny’s commentary on the Belgic Confession!
14. Can any mere creature make satisfaction for us? None, for first, God will not punish any other creature for the sin which man committed;1 and further, no mere creature can sustain the burden of God’s eternal wrath against sin 2 and . . . Continue reading →
Part two of this series is here. 14. Can any mere creature make satisfaction for us?
Question 16 Part 2: Satisfaction for Sin Few things rankle the modern mind more than the idea that God’s justice must be “satisfied.” The old liberals (and some new feminists! See Lucy Reid, She Changes Everything, 16) derided this notion as “slaughterhouse . . . Continue reading →
At DeYoung, Restless, and Reformed.
Martin has been posting great stuff on the atonement. Note the last bit he quotes. Pop quiz: To what covenant(s) does he refer when he calls Christ a “surety”?
Gary Johnson writes: The Scriptural support for the doctrine of penal substitution, as we will see, is overwhelming. Nonetheless, there is perhaps no other single doctrine that has elicited such harsh criticisms, even from those claiming to be Evangelical.
Introduction Without a doubt, one of the Reformed doctrines which evangelical and fundamentalist Christians find most scandalous is the doctrine of definite, personal or limited atonement.1 This rejection happens, in part, because the Reformed teaching is not always well understood. Sometimes the . . . Continue reading →
Part 2 16. Why must he be a true and righteous man? Because the justice of God requires1 that the same human nature which has sinned should make satisfaction for sin, but one who is himself a sinner, cannot satisfy for others.2 . . . Continue reading →
In the recent discussions of the atonement the impression is sometimes created that the penal-substitution doctrine is a mere construct, a figment of the imagination that rests on no biblical foundation. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Nick’s list of resources . . . Continue reading →
There is a generally fair piece on the resurgence of interest in Calvin and in aspects of his theology among evangelicals by Daniel Burke of the Religious News Service. It is better than most pieces as Burke took the time to interview . . . Continue reading →
Martin explains at AH.
How do we reconcile the notion of a limited, personal, substitutionary atonement with a universal non-saving favor? If God is favorably inclined toward all, how can one say that Christ did not die for them? And if Christ did not die for . . . Continue reading →
Without a doubt, one of the Reformed doctrines which evangelical and fundamentalist Christians find most scandalous is the doctrine of definite, personal or limited atonement. This rejection happens, in part, because the Reformed teaching is not always well understood. Sometimes the misunderstandings . . . Continue reading →
(HT: Gary Johnson) When we last saw him he was comparing the catholic, evangelical, and Reformed doctrine of substitutionary atonement (the doctrine that Jesus died in the place of his people thereby turning away the wrath of God) to “cosmic child abuse.” . . . Continue reading →
Canon IV: Before the creation of the world, God decreed in Christ Jesus our Lord according to his eternal purpose (Eph 3:11), in which, from the mere good pleasure of his own will, without any prevision of the merit of works or . . . Continue reading →
Canon VI: Wherefore, we can not agree with the opinion of those who teach: l) that God, moved by philanthropy, or a kind of special love for the fallen of the human race, did, in a kind of conditioned willing, first moving . . . Continue reading →
Neither the ends of the earth nor the kingdoms of this age are of any use to me. It is better for me to die for Jesus Christ than to rule over the ends of the earth. Him I seek, who died . . . Continue reading →