Re: Mediator not by necessity of nature
- "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