Nelmezzo » Grace http://blog.nelmezzo.net the wee blog right in the middle of it all Sun, 23 Mar 2008 08:45:46 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 Three on Theology #1 http://blog.nelmezzo.net/2007/07/09/three-on-theology-1/ http://blog.nelmezzo.net/2007/07/09/three-on-theology-1/#comments Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:48:53 +0000 dwright http://blog.nelmezzo.net/2007/07/09/three-for-theology-1/
  • Sinclair Ferguson on the danger of reifying grace

    The union with Christ we have is not that we somehow or another share His grace. Because – follow me carefully – there actually is no ‘thing’ as grace. . . There is no grace that can be attached to you transferred from Him. All there is is Christ and your soul.

    The full quote at Shepherd’s Scrapbook

  • On speaking words of death in the church

    In short, which is worse–the babbling, emotional, theology-challenged, snake-handling charismaniac OR the self-righteous, xenophobic, status-seeking, materialistic Reformed/Calvinist?

    It’s a pointless question, isn’t it?

    If we Christians want to speak words of death in the Church, then by all means let’s resort to naming the worst possible examples of living the Christian life that we might possibly find in some other denomination or sect. Then let’s write as if those worst possible examples were the norm.

    Read the post at Cerulean Sanctum

  • A specific doctrine vs. functional equivalent?

    Andrew at Theo Geek argues that the doctrine Penal Substitutionary Atonement does not matter, as long as people hold to its functional equivalent.I am profoundly uncomfortable with this type of argument. First, it has the effect of doing an end run around church history. For example, Penal Substitionary Stonement (“PSA”) as a Protestant doctrine functions historically in ways that I don’t know could be replaced by a diffused “functional equivalent.” Specifically, it is Biblical answer to the Catholic idea of a penalty satisfaction debt for sin. Saying the doctrine does not matter amounts to saying that the history underlying the doctrine does not matter either.

    Second, it is not clear that “functionally equivalent beliefs” really deliver the same thing as a doctrine itself. In the case of PSA, I see a gigantic difference between believing that “a loving God forgives sins” and that “a loving and holy God forgives sins because he sends his son who willingly suffers the punishment for sins”. I would argue that the two Gods are even different Gods. The first God is the same as the second God only if one says, “well, I’m leaving some important stuff out.” Enter, then, the doctrine of PSA. So maybe I’m saying that there is no good way to get a real functional equivalent on this (or other) doctrines.
    • ]]>     http://blog.nelmezzo.net/2007/07/09/three-on-theology-1/feed/ 2