Well, I have been busy getting ready for our area leadership retreat this weekend (i spent most of today just doing the food!). HOWEVER, i am eager to discuss something on this blog about the controversial L in TULIP- that's right, limited atonement. As a teaser, i like Mark Driscoll's "unlimited limited atonement" idea, and i think it makes sense scripturally and with regard to the Canons of Dordt.
BUT, i've been reading a little book called "In My Place, Condemned He Stood" by Packer and Dever. It talks about limited atonement and Christ's penal substitutionary atoning death. I've been thinking about this along with some other awesome works, namely "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" and "Redemption; Accomplished and Applied." I wonder if Driscoll's unlimited limited view holds up. I'll write about it after the retreat!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Andy, I always feel I'm pretty smart. At least until I read all these words that you (and Kevin) you use like cupcakes.
Where can I brush up on my "theologese"? I'm struggling to balance all the "big words" and their meanings.
btw, I decided that I'm a 'pragmatic theologian'; see if you can figure out what that one means!
Dude, use that sweet book Dr. McLeod gave us! I usually just try to use the words that are in The Word, or phrases that have been defended and passed down for centuries upon centuries. They are neat little packages for the doctrines i love, and have been explained and defined for hundreds if not thousands of years already, which helps me out a lot.
Pragmatic theologian? Does that just mean you'll only believe the stuff about God that you decide "works" for you? Just kidding, i think. Tell me more!
It's hard to wrap your mind around the concept of whether or not we were chosen to receive grace before we had the choice to refuse that grace: can we go back on "being chosen" if we don't want it? Linear people trying to decode a super concept.
Anyway, I was hoping to use this somewhere this morning. I read the preface to The Great Divorce. People don't like "either-or": they want to find some way "of embracing both alternatives...that mere development or adjustment or refinement will somehow turn evil into good without our being called on for a final and total rejection of anything we should like to retain." Later: "I do not think that all who choose wrong raods perish; but their rescue consists in being put back on the right road....Evil can be undone, but it cannot 'develop' into good."
Will I know if I'm one of the limited who receives(d) atonement whether I want it or not -- and there are plenty who prefer earthly things (negating Jesus's death) to heavenly things (redemption): Matthew 22:1-14 & Romans 8:29-30?
Does the fact that I can ask this question make any difference?
Love it. And good call on the book from McLeod.
As for "pragmatic theologian", it comes from my thought that theology that is purely ideas seems too insufficient. I want it to do something in the world and in my life. Thus, it's pragmatic.
But I'm sure by May you'll find plenty to throw back at it (if you haven't already...)
Hey brother,
Are you going to write more on this?
The challenge that Owen seems to bring up in the "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" is that of his oblation (offering) and his intercession. John 17 seems to be a good chapter. Especially verse 9.
On another topic, did you catch Driscoll's debate on ABC on whether Satan exists. The Resurgence has a link to it.
You folks are making the assumption, tho false, that the word atonement relative to Jesus' crucifixion is only in the venue of, for persons. For this reason it is probably not possible to convince you other wise but, the purpose of Jesus crucifixion actually atones for, i.e. by fact in place, the reasonable reason to make a change of God's law. It is recorded in 1 Cor. 2:8 that if the true purpose for Jesus' crucifixion could have been discoverable before he was crucified he would not have ever been crucified. What would be the result if Jesus had not been crucified? It would not have been possible for God's law to have had a change of it and without this change your salvation from death is impossible. In Heb. 6:18 it is mentioned relative to God's purpose "by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie." What are these two unchangeable things and how do these two things relate only to Jesus' crucifixion?
It is God's set purpose for each man too to give him an account regarding the fact of one man's life having been lost by bloodshed. Gen. 9:5c NIV. An unchangeable constant requirement relative to any man's life taken by bloodshed even Jesus' life.
Two unchangeable things brought together in one man who by them became a life giving spirit, "and the law was added so that the trespass might increase" for by only his crucifixion and a change of law have all men became accountable directly to God regarding the bloodshed of one man. Therefore there is only one Way possible to save yourself from eternal death which is by the faith of obedience of a law.
'It is not those who hear the law who are
righteous in God's sight but it is those who
obey the law who will be declared righteous."
The word Repent, the Lord's command given through the apostles, can only be obeyed by confessing directly to God that you are sorry Jesus has been crucified or disobey a command of God for which there is no resolution. This is what Jesus' death caused by bloodshed has atoned for.
( Dude you may use a book to puff yourself but, it is only by the Book that you will live.)
Post a Comment