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

Re: Mediator not by necessity of nature

Expand Messages
  • raging_calvinist
    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
    Message 1 of 734 , Jul 29, 2001
      "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>Let me clarify this a bit. What I am saying is that
      the Socinians were right to reject the absolute and
      natural necessity of the atonement (the first 2 types of
      necessity PATRICK Gillespie discussed), but they wrongly
      denied that the substitutionary atonement was necessary
      even in the 3rd type of necessity PATRICK Gillespie
      discussed, that necessity by consequence. This is not to say
      that they deny that there is a such thing as
      "necessity by consequence" which results from God's decree.
      I simply meant to say that they deny that the
      substitutionary atonement falls into this category because they
      deny that a substitionary atonement was ever decreed.
      Hence my statement that they wrongly deny that the
      atonement was necessary by way of decree.<br><br>All
      clear?<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.