DOCSLIB.ORG

A Comparative Study of the Concept of Atonement in the Writings of John R

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Andrews University Digital Commons @ Andrews University Dissertations Graduate Research 2011 A Comparative Study of the Concept of Atonement in the Writings of John R. W. Stott and Ellen G. White Lawrence O. Oladini Andrews University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations Part of the Comparative Literature Commons, and the Comparative Methodologies and Theories Commons Recommended Citation Oladini, Lawrence O., "A Comparative Study of the Concept of Atonement in the Writings of John R. W. Stott and Ellen G. White" (2011). Dissertations. 117. https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations/117 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Research at Digital Commons @ Andrews University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Andrews University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Thank you for your interest in the Andrews University Digital Library of Dissertations and Theses. Please honor the copyright of this document by not duplicating or distributing additional copies in any form without the author’s express written permission. Thanks for your cooperation. ABSTRACT A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE CONCEPT OF ATONEMENT IN THE WRITINGS OF JOHN R. W. STOTT AND ELLEN G. WHITE by Lawrence O. Oladini Chair: John T. Baldwin ABSTRACT OF GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH Dissertation Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary Title: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE CONCEPT OF ATONEMENT IN THE WRITINGS OF JOHN R. W. STOTT AND ELLEN G. WHITE Name of researcher: Lawrence O. Oladini Name and degree of faculty adviser: John T. Baldwin, Ph.D. Date completed: July 2011 The study examines two evangelical penal substitutionary theologies of atonement presented by John Stott and Ellen White. It adopts a descriptive and analytic approach to examine the respective atonement theologies of both authors. Chapter 1 introduces the purpose of the dissertation and the methodology adopted. Chapter 2 examines the different theories of atonement in Christian theology. Chapters 3 and 4 examine the respective atonement theologies of Stott and White. Chapter 5 is a comparative analysis of the concept of atonement in both authors, while chapter 6 summarizes the conclusions of the study. Purpose The purpose of the research is to describe, analyze, and compare the concept of atonement as articulated in the theological writings of Stott and White. The study endeavors to explore the contrasting scope of atonement present in the two respective theological systems. It also aims at discovering whether there are any evangelical theological bases for a rapprochement between Stott‘s atonement theology (which is centered on the cross) and that of White (which is also centered on the cross, but also includes the heavenly sanctuary ministry of Christ). Additionally, the research also aims at finding out the reasons for the differences in their atonement theologies, since they both subscribe to the penal substitutionary view. Another goal of the research is to discover any distinctive contributions that both theologies might have made to the Christian theology of atonement. Method In order to bring out the similarities and differences between the two theologies of atonement, the study examines their respective assumptions, presuppositions, and methodology. Other relevant criteria used in the comparative study include the centrality of the cross, the achievement of the cross, atonement as substitution, the high priestly ministry of Christ, and the scope of the atonement. Conclusion The conclusion of the study reveals that the atonement theologies of Stott and White reveal a common commitment to two pillars of evangelicalism, namely the supreme authority of Scripture and the penal substitutionary view of atonement. However, critical differences between the two theologies in their respective presuppositions in their doctrines of God in relation to atonement on the cross versus atonement in stages, the extent of the atonement, the issue of the revocability of justification, the cosmic controversy theme, and the high priestly ministry of Christ seem to account for the differences observed in the theologies. Overall, White‘s theology seems to be broader in its presentation of the scope of the atonement and seems to be more consistent with the scriptural evidence. It is hoped that the renewed interest in the judgment aspect of the atonement by some evangelical theologians in recent times may lead to a more sympathetic examination of the broader view of White on atonement in the wider evangelical theological arena. Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE CONCEPT OF ATONEMENT IN THE WRITINGS OF JOHN R. W. STOTT AND ELLEN G. WHITE A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy by Lawrence O. Oladini July 2011 © Copyright by Lawrence O. Oladini 2011 All Rights Reserved A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE CONCEPT OF ATONEMENT IN THE WRITINGS OF JOHN R. W. STOTT AND ELLEN G. WHITE A dissertation presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy by Lawrence O. Oladini APPROVAL BY THE COMMITTEE: ________________________________ _____________________________ Faculty Adviser, Director of Ph.D./Th.D. Program John T. Baldwin Thomas Shepherd Professor of Theology ________________________________ _____________________________ Peter M. van Bemmelen Dean, SDA Theological Seminary Professor of Theology, Emeritus Denis Fortin ________________________________ _____________________________ Denis Fortin Date approved Professor of Theology DEDICATION To my wife, Bosede, my three adult children, Tolu, Bolu, and Funmi, who endured years of emotional, and financial sacrifice, but kept the hope alive that their husband and father will ―one day‖ finish the dissertation that he began. To the memory of my late father, James Adeyera Oladini, who from childhood taught me and my siblings the value of excellence in education. To the members and leaders of the congregations of which I am the pastor, for their patience, understanding and cooperation, throughout the period of my research. And to the glory of the Lord Jesus, whose grace has made it possible for me to write this dissertation on the greatest theme of all times and eternity, the atonement provided pro nobis. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................. viii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ............................................. 1 Background to the Problem ..................................... 1 Statement of The Problem ...................................... 6 Purpose ................................................... 14 Justification ................................................ 14 Limitations ................................................ 16 Method ................................................... 17 II. THEORIES OF ATONEMENT .................................. 18 Ransom Theory ............................................. 18 Irenaeus (140-202) ...................................... 19 Gregory of Nyssa (335-395)............................... 23 Gregory of Nazianzus (329-389) ........................... 25 Evaluation of the Ransom Theory .......................... 27 The Satisfaction Theory of Anselm (c. 1033-1109) .................. 28 Evaluation of the Satisfaction Theory ............................ 33 Moral Influence Theory: Peter Abelard (1079-1142) ................. 36 Evaluation of the Moral Influence Theory ......................... 39 Penal Substitution Theory ..................................... 40 Martin Luther (1483-1546) ............................... 41 John Calvin (1509-1564) ................................. 45 Evaluation of the Penal Substitution Theory ....................... 50 The Socinian Theory: The Example View ......................... 52 Evaluation of the Socinian Theory .............................. 55 Governmental Theory: Hugo Grotius (A.D. 1583-1645) .............. 56 Evaluation of Governmental Theory ............................. 60 Contemporary Theories ....................................... 61 Views of Satisfaction or Penal Substitution ................... 62 Views of Moral Influence ................................ 64 Views of Vicarious Confession or Vicarious Penitence .......... 65 Views of Sacrifice ...................................... 66 The View of Victory over the Evil Powers .................... 67 Summary.................................................. 69 iv III. THE ATONEMENT THEOLOGY OF JOHN STOTT ................. 70 John Stott and His Writings .................................... 70 Assumptions, Presuppositions, and Methodology ................... 73 Assumptions and Presuppositions .......................... 74 God and Forgiveness of Human Sin .................... 75 The Gravity of Sin ................................. 77 Human Moral Responsibility and Guilt .................. 79 The Wrath of God .................................. 83 Methodology .......................................... 87 The Authority of the Bible ........................... 89 The Interpretation of the Bible ........................ 98 Centrality of the Cross....................................... 110 The Perspective of Jesus ................................ 113 The Perspective of the Apostles . 117 The Perspective of New Testament Writers .................. 121 Atonement as Penal
Recommended publications
  • The Five Points of Calvinism

    The Five Points of Calvinism

    • TULIP The Five Points of Calvinism instructor’s guide Bethlehem College & Seminary 720 13th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55415 612.455.3420 [email protected] | bcsmn.edu Copyright © 2007, 2012, 2017 by Bethlehem College & Seminary All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, modified, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Scripture taken from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Copyright © 2007 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. • TULIP The Five Points of Calvinism instructor’s guide Table of Contents Instructor’s Introduction Course Syllabus 1 Introduction from John Piper 3 Lesson 1 Introduction to the Doctrines of Grace 5 Lesson 2 Total Depravity 27 Lesson 3 Irresistible Grace 57 Lesson 4 Limited Atonement 85 Lesson 5 Unconditional Election 115 Lesson 6 Perseverance of the Saints 141 Appendices Appendix A Historical Information 173 Appendix B Testimonies from Church History 175 Appendix C Ten Effects of Believing in the Five Points of Calvinism 183 Instructor’s Introduction It is our hope and prayer that God would be pleased to use this curriculum for his glory. Thus, the intention of this curriculum is to spread a passion for the supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples through Jesus Christ. This curriculum is guided by the vision and values of Bethlehem College & Seminary which are more fully explained at bcsmn.edu. At the Bethlehem College & Semianry website, you will find the God-centered philosophy that undergirds and motivates everything we do.
  • Calvinism and Limited Atonement Isaiah 53:6; Hebrews 2:9 and Others

    Calvinism and Limited Atonement Isaiah 53:6; Hebrews 2:9 and Others

    CALVINISM AND LIMITED ATONEMENT ISAIAH 53:6; HEBREWS 2:9 AND OTHERS Text: Isaiah 53:6; Hebrews 2:9 Isaiah 53:6 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. Hebrews 2:9 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. Introduction: Of the five points of Calvin’s philosophy, (and I call it "philosophy" instead of "theology" because in this particular point, it is 100% contrary to the revealed will of God as given to us in the Bible, therefore, it cannot properly be called "theology") the weakest link is his so-called false teaching on the "LIMITED ATONEMENT," or the "L" of the T.U.L.I.P. acronym of Calvinism. - 1 - It is interesting to me that this point is the center of this deadly flower. We will consider the Basic Definition, Blatant Distortion, and the Biblical Dispute, of Limited Atonement. 1. BASIC DEFINITION OF LIMITED ATONEMENT By “Limited Atonement” we refer to the belief which states that Christ did not die for “all or everyone” but rather died only for the elect. While it is true that only the saved benefit from Christ’s death on the cross, Christ died for all people. 1 John 2:1-2 1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not.
  • BEFORE the ORIGINAL POSITION the Neo-Orthodox Theology of the Young John Rawls

    BEFORE the ORIGINAL POSITION the Neo-Orthodox Theology of the Young John Rawls

    BEFORE THE ORIGINAL POSITION The Neo-Orthodox Theology of the Young John Rawls Eric Gregory ABSTRACT This paper examines a remarkable document that has escaped critical at- tention within the vast literature on John Rawls, religion, and liberalism: Rawls’s undergraduate thesis, “A Brief Inquiry into the Meaning of Sin and Faith: An Interpretation Based on the Concept of Community” (1942). The thesis shows the extent to which a once regnant version of Protestant the- ology has retreated into seminaries and divinity schools where it now also meets resistance. Ironically, the young Rawls rejected social contract liber- alism for reasons that anticipate many of the claims later made against him by secular and religious critics. The thesis and Rawls’s late unpublished remarks on religion and World War II offer a new dimension to his intellec- tual biography. They show the significance of his humanist response to the moral impossibility of political theology. Moreover, they also reveal a kind of Rawlsian piety marginalized by contemporary debates over religion and liberalism. KEY WORDS: John Rawls, community, liberalism, religion, political theology, public reason PROTESTANT THEOLOGIAN REINHOLD NIEBUHR DIED IN 1971. In that same year, philosopher John Rawls published his groundbreaking work, A The- ory of Justice. These two events symbolically express transformations in American intellectual and political culture that remain significant today. In the academy, religious defenders of a liberal consensus had been chal- lenged by ascendant secular liberalisms and emergent religious voices critical of liberalism of any kind. Parallel developments in the political culture had begun to see the fracturing of coalitions that transcended di- verse religious and secular commitments in order to support democratic institutions and practices.
  • Total Depravity

    Total Depravity

    TULIP: A FREE GRACE PERSPECTIVE PART 1: TOTAL DEPRAVITY ANTHONY B. BADGER Associate Professor of Bible and Theology Grace Evangelical School of Theology Lancaster, Pennsylvania I. INTRODUCTION The evolution of doctrine due to continued hybridization has pro- duced a myriad of theological persuasions. The only way to purify our- selves from the possible defects of such “theological genetics” is, first, to recognize that we have them and then, as much as possible, to set them aside and disassociate ourselves from the systems which have come to dominate our thinking. In other words, we should simply strive for truth and an objective understanding of biblical teaching. This series of articles is intended to do just that. We will carefully consider the truth claims of both Calvinists and Arminians and arrive at some conclusions that may not suit either.1 Our purpose here is not to defend a system, but to understand the truth. The conflicting “isms” in this study (Calvinism and Arminianism) are often considered “sacred cows” and, as a result, seem to be solidified and in need of defense. They have become impediments in the search for truth and “barriers to learn- ing.” Perhaps the emphatic dogmatism and defense of the paradoxical views of Calvinism and Arminianism have impeded the theological search for truth much more than we realize. Bauman reflects, I doubt that theology, as God sees it, entails unresolvable paradox. That is another way of saying that any theology that sees it [paradox] or includes it is mistaken. If God does not see theological endeavor as innately or irremediably paradoxical, 1 For this reason the author declines to be called a Calvinist, a moderate Calvinist, an Arminian, an Augustinian, a Thomist, a Pelagian, or a Semi- Pelagian.
  • Calvinism Vs Wesleyan Arminianism

    Calvinism Vs Wesleyan Arminianism

    The Comparison of Calvinism and Wesleyan Arminianism by Carl L. Possehl Membership Class Resource B.S., Upper Iowa University, 1968 M.C.M., Olivet Nazarene University, 1991 Pastor, Plantation Wesleyan Church 10/95 Edition When we start to investigate the difference between Calvinism and Wesleyan Arminianism, the question must be asked: "For Whom Did Christ Die?" Many Christians answer the question with these Scriptures: (Failing, 1978, pp.1-3) JOH 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (NIV) We believe that "whoever" means "any person, and ...that any person can believe, by the assisting Spirit of God." (Failing, 1978, pp.1-3) 1Timothy 2:3-4 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, (4) who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (NIV) 2PE 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (NIV) REV 22:17 The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life. (NIV) (Matthew 28:19-20 NIV) Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (20) and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.
  • The Identity of Jesus of Nazareth*

    The Identity of Jesus of Nazareth*

    Criswell Theological Review 6.1 (1992) 91-130. Copyright © 1992 by The Criswell College. Cited with permission. THE IDENTITY OF JESUS OF NAZARETH* CARL F. H. HENRY Lecturer at Large Prison Fellowship Ministries Nowhere is the tension between historically repeatable acts and a once-for-all event focused more dramatically than in the conflict over the identity of Jesus of Nazareth. Shall we explain him as the ideal model of mankind and expound divine incarnation by philosophical analysis of what is humanly possible, or shall we depict him rather in terms of the christologically unparalleled? The Gospels provide our only significant information about Jesus' life and work. Skeptical critics thrust upon these sources tests of reliabil- ity that they do not impose upon other historical writing. If universally applied, those same criteria would in principle invalidate ancient Greek and Roman accounts that secular historians routinely accept as factual.1 Efforts to destroy the credibility of gospels often betray a bias against the supernatural. Gerald G. O'Collins recalls "the official Soviet thesis (which appears recently to have been abandoned) that Jesus never existed and was a purely mythological figure.”2 Consistent Marx- ists would need to reject the theology-of-revolution view that the his- torical figure of Jesus nurtures its liberationist challenge to an alienated world. The assumptions of evolutionary naturalism likewise lead to a rejection of Jesus as in any way normative and decisive for human destiny. * This essay represents the two lectures read at the Criswell Lecture Series, Criswell College, January 1991. 1 Cf. A N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testa- ment, (London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1963).
  • The Nature and Extent of the Atonement in Lutheran

    The Nature and Extent of the Atonement in Lutheran

    THE N A T U R E A N D E X T E N T O F T H E ATONEMENT I N L U T H E R A N T H E O L O G Y DAVID SCAER, TH.D. I. The Problem The· conflict concerning the nature and extent of the atonement arose in Christian theology because of attempts to reconcile rationally apparently conflicting statements in the Holy Scriptures on the atone- ment and election. Briefly put, passages relating to the atonement are universal in scope including all men and those relating to election apply only to a limited number. Basically there have been three approaches to this tension between a universal atonement and a limited election. One approach is to understand the atonement in light of the election. Since obviously there are many who are not eventually saved, the atonement offered by Christ really applied not to them but only to those who are finally saved, i.e., the elect. This is the Calvinistic or Reformed view. The second approach understands the election in light of the atonement. This view credits each individual with the ability to make a choice of his own free will to believe in Christ. Since Christ died for all men and since man is responsible for his own damnation, therefore he at least cooperates with the Holy Spirit in coming to faith. This is the Arminian or synergistic view, also widely held in Methodism. The third view* is that of classical Lutheran theology. This position as set down in the Formula of Concord (1580) does not attempt to resolve what the Holy Scriptures state con- cerning atonement and election.
  • Two Aspects in the Design of Christ's Atonement

    Two Aspects in the Design of Christ's Atonement

    Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry Vol. 2 No. 2 (Fall 2004): 85-98 Two Aspects in the Design of Christ’s Atonement Wayne S. Hansen Associate Professor of Theology Bethel Seminary of the East 1601 N. Limekiln Pike Dresher, Pennsylvania 19025 For well over three and a half centuries Christians have been divided over one aspect of Christ’s atonement. This topic has served to separate believer from believer, often with great animosity. The cleavage is so great that it has divided schools, denominational institutions, mission agencies, and local churches. Ironically, it has been labeled as a “non-essential” by at least one side in the debate. Yet the implications for this topic are significant for one’s approach to the church, evangelism, confidence in the sovereignty of God, and especially, Christology. The topic I am alluding to is limited atonement, to use its more recognized label. Some have preferred the term “definite atonement” or “particular redemption” to emphasize the positive focus of the doctrine and eliminate any suspicion of the value of Christ’s work. But whichever term is used the basic question remains. “Did God intend to save only the elect in the death of Christ or provide salvation for all?” Passionate defenses on each side of the issue have been offered. Frequently, tensions are so strong on this issue that one side does not hear what the other is saying. Each feels justified in her/his view and often refuses to look at the other’s argument. Not a few have stated that both are true and then dismissed the subject without seeing the inconsistency of their logic.
  • Embracing Icons: the Face of Jacob on the Throne of God*

    Embracing Icons: the Face of Jacob on the Throne of God*

    Images 2007_f13_36-54 8/13/07 5:19 PM Page 36 RACHEL NEIS University of Michigan EMBRACING ICONS: THE FACE OF JACOB ON THE THRONE OF GOD* Abstract I bend over it, embrace, kiss and fondle to it, Rachel Neis’ article treats Hekhalot Rabbati, a collection of early and my hands are upon its arms, Jewish mystical traditions, and more specifically §§ 152–169, a three times, when you speak before me “holy.” series of Qedusha hymns. These hymns are liturgical performances, As it is said: holy, holy, holy.1 the highlight of which is God’s passionate embrace of the Jacob icon Heikhalot Rabbati, § 164 on his throne as triggered by Israel’s utterance of the Qedusha. §§ 152–169 also set forth an ocular choreography such that the For over a century, scholars conceived of the relation- gazes of Israel and God are exchanged during the recitation of the ship between visuality in Judaism and Christianity Qedusha. The article set these traditions within the history of sim- in binary terms.2 Judaism was understood as a reli- ilar Jewish traditions preserved in Rabbinic literature. It will be argued that §§ 152–169 date to the early Byzantine period, reflecting gion of the word in opposition to Christianity, a Jewish interest in images of the sacred parallel to the contempo- which was seen as a deeply visual culture. For raneous Christian intensification of the cult of images and preoccupation many scholars, never the twain did meet—Jews with the nature of religious images. were always “the nation without art,” or “artless,”3 while for much of their history Christians embraced Bear witness to them 4 5 of what testimony you see of me, icons, creating visual representations of the divine.
  • Theology Today

    Theology Today

    Theology Today volume 67, N u m b e r 2 j u l y 2 0 1 0 EDITORIAL Christmas in July 123 JAMES F. KAY ARTICLES American Scriptures 127 C. CLIFTON BLACK Christian Spirituality in a Time of Ecological Awareness 169 KATHLEEN FISCHER The “New Monasticism” as Ancient-Future Belonging 182 PHILIP HARROLD Sexuality as Sacrament: An Evangelical Reads Andrew Greeley 194 ANTHONY L. BLAIR THEOLOGICAL TABLE TALK The Difference Calvin Made 205 R. BRUCE DOUGLASS CRITIC’S CORNER Thinking beyond Easy Tribalism 216 WALTER BRUEGGEMANN BOOK REVIEWS The Ten Commandments, by Patrick Miller 220 STANLEY HAUERWAS An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts, by D. C. Parker 224 SHANE BERG TT-67-2-pages.indb 1 4/21/10 12:45 PM Incarnation: The Person and Life of Christ by Thomas F. Torrance, edited by Robert T. Walker 225 PAUL D. MOLNAR Religion after Postmodernism: Retheorizing Myth and Literature by Victor E. Taylor 231 TOM BEAUDOIN Practical Theology: An Introduction, by Richard R. Osmer 234 JOYCE ANN MERCER Boundless Faith: The Global Outreach of American Churches by Robert Wuthnow 241 RICHARD FOX YOUNG The Hand and the Road: The Life and Times of John A. Mackay by John Mackay Metzger 244 JOHN H. SINCLAIR The Child in the Bible, Marcia J. Bunge, general editor; Terence E. Fretheim and Beverly Roberts Gaventa, coeditors 248 KAREN-MARIE YUST TT-67-2-pages.indb 2 4/21/10 12:45 PM James F. Kay, Editor Gordon S. Mikoski, Reviews Editor Blair D. Bertrand, Editorial Assistant EDITORIAL COUNCIL Iain R.
  • Biblical and Logical Warrant for Limited Atonement

    Biblical and Logical Warrant for Limited Atonement

    M. Howell 1-10-04 Biblical and Logical Warrant for Definite Atonement He entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing eternal redemption. -Hebrews 9:12 The crux of the entire debate surrounding limited atonement is whether Christ is a real Savior or a potential Savior. Did Christ actually or potentially accomplish His purpose for dying for our sins? It is my position that Christ's death actually accomplished its purpose, that is, that it ensured the salvation of His people rather than merely provide the possibility of salvation for everyone who believes. This, therefore, makes Christ’s atonement limited in its efficaciousness. David Steele and Curtis Thomas write, “Christ’s saving work was limited in that it was designed to save some and not others, but it was not limited in value for it was of infinite worth and would have secured salvation for everyone if this had been God’s intention.”1 But as we shall soon see, regardless of your theological assumptions, the atonement is limited. That is why I prefer the term definite atonement to limited atonement. I shall be arguing for definite atonement in two parts, the first part consisting of the Biblical basis for definite atonement, and the second part consisting of the Logical basis for definite atonement. This separation should in no way imply that the Bible should or even could be divorced from logic. God is a God of logic and His special revelation is consequently inherently logical.
  • Calvinism and Arminianism Are Tw

    Calvinism and Arminianism Are Tw

    K-Group week 3 Question: "Calvinism vs. Arminianism - which view is correct?" Answer: Calvinism and Arminianism are two systems of theology that attempt to explain the relationship between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility in the matter of salvation. Calvinism is named for John Calvin, a French theologian who lived from 1509-1564. Arminianism is named for Jacobus Arminius, a Dutch theologian who lived from 1560-1609. Both systems can be summarized with five points. Calvinism holds to the total depravity of man while Arminianism holds to partial depravity. Calvinism’s doctrine of total depravity states that every aspect of humanity is corrupted by sin; therefore, human beings are unable to come to God on their own accord. Partial depravity states that every aspect of humanity is tainted by sin, but not to the extent that human beings are unable to place faith in God of their own accord. Note: classical Arminianism rejects “partial depravity” and holds a view very close to Calvinistic “total depravity” (although the extent and meaning of that depravity are debated in Arminian circles). In general, Arminians believe there is an “intermediate” state between total depravity and salvation. In this state, made possible by prevenient grace, the sinner is being drawn to Christ and has the God-given ability to choose salvation. Calvinism includes the belief that election is unconditional, while Arminianism believes in conditional election. Unconditional election is the view that God elects individuals to salvation based entirely on His will, not on anything inherently worthy in the individual. Conditional election states that God elects individuals to salvation based on His foreknowledge of who will believe in Christ unto salvation, thereby on the condition that the individual chooses God.