By Walker Moore
I’m proud of myself because I’ve hit another mile marker. I’ve only had my iPhone for about six months and have already mastered turning it on, making a call and charging it up every night. Just don’t ask me about text messaging and video chatting. I think I have a few more lessons to go.
The other day, I was at the doctor’s office when a mother with three little girls came in and sat near me. The longer these young ladies remained in the waiting the room, the more fidgety they became. At last, the mother pulled out her iPhone and handed it to the oldest daughter, who began to go through some different apps. Continue reading
This is the fifth of a series of articles by Dr. Cox, with a Biblical critique of Calvinism drawn in part from his book Not One Little Child.
A survey of the New Testament documents harmonizes beautifully with the testimony of the Old Testament concerning human options. Matthew recorded the words of Jesus when he taught His disciples to pray. Jesus stated that there is God’s will and implied that there is man’s will (Matt. 6:10). Jesus said that man may or may not choose to do the will of God (Matt. 7:21), that whoever does the will of God is related to Christ (Matt. 12:50), and that willingness to follow Him rests with man (Matt. 16:24). He further declared that the Father wills that none should perish, not one little child, which all of us begin as (Matt. 18:14). Jesus also implied that doing the will of God is optional when He taught the parable of the two sons (Matt. 21:31). And, I think one of the most fabulous of all passages regarding the human freewill is the one which relates the prayer of Jesus just before His arrest, in which is seen His human will conflicting with the will of God; but Jesus voluntarily submitted His human will to God’s will when He said, “… if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as Thou wilt” (Matt. 26:39). Continue reading
Matthew Barrett and Thomas Nettles, eds. Whomever He Wills: a Surprising Display of Sovereign Mercy (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2012), 401 pgs.
(Ed.’s note: What follows below is Part 2D. This follows Part 2C that appeared on Aug. 15.)
6) The Efficacious Nature of the Atonement.
On pages 85-90, Schrock moves from the discussion of the particular nature of Christ’s atonement to the efficacious nature of it. Here there is less to disagree with, but some troublesome spots occur. Schrock writes, “Historically, those who have defended penal substitution have usually embraced definite atonement” (88). In light of the large variety of Calvinists throughout Reformed history who have affirmed a form of unlimited atonement, coupled with the large number of non-Calvinists like John Wesley who affirmed unlimited atonement along with penal substitution, this statement needs qualification. In the footnote, he mistakenly cites Shedd who was actually moderate on the question of the extent of the atonement. (I am here assuming Schrock is citing Shedd as a proponent of Limited Atonement.) Continue reading