Bible, Theology & Philosophy

This is a series about the Trinity. It explores this doctrine by brief expositions of different passages from throughout the Gospel of Mark, showing how the Trinity is the explicit and implicit teaching and assumption of Scripture.

Introduction

The greatest British theologian of the 17th Century was, in the opinion of many, John Owen. Owen made distinctive contributions in a number of theological loci. His book on the mutual relationship within the Trinity and our communion with each of the Divine Persons is still the best work on the subject.¹ Likewise, his manifesto for congregational-independency² offers some of the best arguments for a Pastor-led congregational form of church government, and his The Death of Death in the Death of Christ³ is considered the book on the Reformed view of particular redemption. Owen’s teaching on the subject of the inspiration of the Bible is also most instructive, especially in view of what has been and is being taught in some evangelical seminaries and books.

The Importance of Divine Inspiration

Owen’s views on the crucial matter of the relationship of the Bible as we have it and the autographs are worth pondering. He, like all solid evangelicals, rests the authority of the Bibles we have, not upon some inner impression of its validity, but upon its original theopneustic character. In his, The Divine Original of the Scripture he asserted, “That the whole authority of the scripture in itself depends solely on its divine original, is confessed by all who acknowledge its authority.”⁴ Thus the autographs were from God and delivered to men. We possess “the words of truth from God Himself.”⁵

Amazon Affiliate Link

Reposted with permission from The Cripplegate.

by Eric Davis

I typically do not read books from contemporary politicians. Recently I made an exception when a friend who thinks intelligently about culture recommended that I read The Vanishing American Adult: Our Coming-of-Age Crisis and How to Rebuild a Culture of Self-Reliance, by Ben Sasse. A few chapters in, it became obvious that Sasse is not a typical politician.

He has been serving as a US Senator from Nebraska since 2015. He holds degrees from Harvard, Oxford, St. John’s, and Yale. He has worked in consulting and was a university president by age 37. Sasse learned to work with his hands, having grown up farming. He is a Christian and has three kids. His conservative persuasion is not motivated by larger tax breaks, but by things like the first amendment, involuntarism, and decentralized decision-making. And, Sasse seems like the type of guy who you could chat with on anything from cars to Christ to culture while watch college football and eating a Coney Island dog.

Jay Adams has a way with words, and an excellent way of explaining the significance of the doctrine of limited atonement in the Reformed view. He describes the T (total depravity) and P (perseverance of the saints) as the bun, holding the burger together, and the U (unconditional election) and the I (irresistible grace) as the lettuce and tomato. But the part that makes the burger a burger is the “meat” of the L (limited atonement).

Adams suggests,

To hold to the fact that Jesus didn’t die for “mankind,” or, as that means, persons in general—but for persons in particular, is essential to having a “Personal Savior … He didn’t die for people in general, but that He knew His sheep, and called them by name, and gave His life for each one of them individually is a blessed truth, not to be omitted from the burger … Jesus didn’t come to make salvation possible—He came to “seek and to save that which was lost… . He didn’t die needlessly for millions who would reject Him. if universal atonement were true, then God could hardly punish men and women for eternity for whom Christ had already suffered the punishment. There is no double jeopardy. And therefore, there is no burger unless it is a TULIPBURGER!

In asserting limited atonement Adams makes four key assertions: