Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Mediator not by necessity of nature

Expand Messages
  • raging_calvinist
    Paradoxically, while the rejection of such a view had strong Reformed defenders, socinians actually were using this same rejection to allow a denial
    Message 1 of 734 , Jul 28, 2001
      "Paradoxically, while the rejection of such a
      view had strong Reformed defenders, socinians actually
      were using this same rejection to allow a denial
      substitutionary atonement."<br><br>John Owen, in "THE DOCTRINE OF
      THE TRINITY AND THE PERSON AND SATISFACTION OF
      CHRIST," argues that God does indeed punish sin by
      necessity of nature, and he there states that he is taking
      the same stance that others have taken against the
      Socinians (implying that men like Gillespie, Rutherford,
      and Twisse are espousing, or at least flirting with,
      Socinianism):<br><br>"I have only to add, that in handling the doctrine
      of the satisfaction of Christ, I have proceeded on
      that principle which, as it is fully confirmed in the
      Scripture, so it has been constantly maintained and adhered
      unto by the most of those who with judgment and
      success have managed these controversies against the
      Socinians: and this is, that the essential holiness of God
      with his justice or righteousness, as the supreme
      governor of all, did indispensably require that sin should
      not also lately go unpunished; and that it should do
      so, stands in a repugnancy to those holy properties
      of his nature." -- John Owen.<br><br>Incidently,
      I've found in some other writings of Owen where he
      denies that God punishes sin by necessity of nature,
      which means he flip-flopped (to the wrong side) at some
      point.<br><br>As for the Socinians, when it comes to the necessity
      of the atonement they rightly denied not only the
      first two types of necessity discussed by PATRICK
      Gillespie (Absolute necessity, and natural necessity), they
      wrongly denied the third type (necessity by consequence).
      The substitionary atonement WAS necessary, not
      absolutely and naturally, but by way of God's
      decree.<br><br>gmw.
    • almo_no1
      prayers are easy gmw, you ve got em.
      Message 734 of 734 , Sep 18, 2001
        prayers are easy gmw, you've got 'em.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.