Limited Atonement

As Dabney points out, the very term “atonement” is unclear. What do we mean by this word? It comes from the older English, literally at-one-ment, which would imply reconciliation. We can also recall various “atonement models,” which include Christus Victor, the ransom theory, and penal substitution. Dabney, as well as Warfield, [...]

Read Full Post »

Dabney on Trinitarian Thought

We find ourselves speaking almost inevitably of 1st, 2d, and 3d persons; thus implying some order in the persons. No orthodox Christian, of course, understands this order as relating to a priority of time, or of essential dignity. To what, then, does it relate? And is there any substantial reason for assigning [...]

Read Full Post »

Dabney on Unlimited Expiation

Dabney is certainly sympathetic to the Amyraldians. He doesn’t agree with Hodge’s criticisms, though he does believe that the Amyraldian solutions fail to achieve what they set out to do. For Dabney, the “limitation” of the atonement (this is a word he doesn’t much care for either) comes in the covenant of redemption [...]

Read Full Post »

How Can God Both Desire Your Salvation and Condemn You?

R L Dabney answered this question by an analogy:
The direction in which the answers are conceived to lie may be best indicated by an analogical instance. A human ruler may have full power and authority over the punishment of a culprit, may declare consistently his sincere compassion for him, and may yet freely elect to [...]

Read Full Post »

Dabney’s Solution to the Lapsarian Debate

This is worth quoting in detail. I’m very intrigued by Dabney’s particular understanding of divine simplicity, as he and Hodge were both very critical of the more Thomistic definition.

The attempt to illustrate the action of the divine will from the rise of rational volition in man, has doubtless been prejudiced by the scholastic [...]

Read Full Post »

Ayres and “Pro-Nicene”

A major component of Lewis Ayres’ Nicea and its Legacy is the specific historical narrative that it presents. The protagonists are called “Pro-Nicenes,” and Ayres identifies a Pro-Nicene as possessing three distinctives:
1. a clear version of the person and nature distinction, entailing the principle that whatever is predicated of the divine nature is [...]

Read Full Post »

Michel Barnes’ Critique of Augustine’s Modern Critics

In a highly influential 1995 article in Theological Studies, Michel Barnes levels a damning critique on much of what the 20th century has had to say about Augustine. Whether or not we can credit this wholly to Barnes, it seems to be the case that with the publication of Ayres’ Nicaea and its Legacy, [...]

Read Full Post »

Ayres on Eunomius

Eunomius does describe the Son as created, but he is concerned to show that the Son is distinct from the creation we inhabit: the Son is a product unlike other products and stands in the relationship of maker to all other things.  The Son holds a unique status because he is a uniquely direct product [...]

Read Full Post »

Your Faith Making Christ For You?

John Piper writes:
What I want to say is that at the moment when we put our childlike faith in Jesus Christ, he became our punishment and our obedience. That is, at that moment he became the obedience required for God to be totally for us.
Now this sounds bad to me. Real bad. I [...]

Read Full Post »

Romans 3

I was reading the third chapter of Romans today. This is a section of scripture which many Christians coming out of the Reformation understand to be the core of the gospel. The first half of Romans, at least, is what it’s all about.
And I really can agree with them, though perhaps for different [...]

Read Full Post »