tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10641870.post1875376494660099206..comments2024-02-13T23:05:30.411+00:00Comments on An accidental blog: Saving Calvinism by Oliver Crisp stevebishophttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01485378930192829175noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10641870.post-57242580614934229462017-01-09T23:23:42.790+00:002017-01-09T23:23:42.790+00:00But they aren't Calvinists are they Steve? I t...But they aren't Calvinists are they Steve? I think it is exactly because they all rejected PSA (or satisfaction, as the 16th and 17th century men put it) which means Oliver is interested in them. Sure we can embrace Arminianism (Grotius), Barthianism (the Torrances) or McLoed Campbell's repentance as atonement ideas (expelled from the Church of Scotland in 1831). The New Divinity of Joseph Bellamy I am less sure of, but it does seem to me that these men embraced the Arminian view of the cross of Grotius (satisfaction of the demands of the law, rather than bearing the punishment for sin), just like Baxter and Fuller. It's interesting that in your quote Oliver slides from Calvinist to Reformed. Sure, there are lots of Reformed theologians who reject Calvinism but this doesn't mean that embracing that rejection is Saving Calvinism. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09716670382845569753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10641870.post-69597648080688038382017-01-08T11:54:25.845+00:002017-01-08T11:54:25.845+00:00Hi Tony, thanks for 'dropping by'! I don&#...Hi Tony, thanks for 'dropping by'! I don't think that Crisp says that they *deny* PSA, but not all fully endorse it.<br /><br />He discusses several alternatives to it that have been held including the satisfaction theory of Anselm and nonpenal substitution - he cites John McLeod Campbell and the Torrance brothers as advocates of a version of this. Penal non-substitution developed by Grotius and developed by Joseph Bellamy (one of Jonathan Edwards followers).<br /><br />As you can see he takes a broad view of what constitutes Calvinism.<br /><br />In his conclusion to his chapter on the cross he writes:<br /><br />"There is not one single way of thinking about this matter Penal substitution is often thought of as the mainstay of Reformed teaching on the topic, and there is good reason for thinking this is true when one looks at historic Reformed confessions on this subject. However, we have seen that there are actually a family of views on the atonement, all of which are to be found within the Reformed branch of Christianity these views share a common core of themes about Christ as our representative, or substitute We might say that they all address the question of whether Christ’s work is fundamentally vicarious in nature, though what sort of vicarious action is involved is disputed We have considered four of these approaches to the work of Christ that are Reformed. We have also considered the atonement as more than the work of Christ on the cross, in keeping with some more recent Reformed thinkers."<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />Steve<br /> stevebishophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01485378930192829175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10641870.post-18749614484635778682017-01-06T15:14:52.243+00:002017-01-06T15:14:52.243+00:00Who are the Calvinists who Oliver thinks denied PS...Who are the Calvinists who Oliver thinks denied PSA, Steve. Reading them for over 40 years I haven't come across one.<br /><br />TonyAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09716670382845569753noreply@blogger.com