On the atonement, part 6: universal atonement fails to actually accomplish redemption for anyone
Posted on Tuesday, March 31, 2009 under papers • 12 comments • read it ⇒In this series, I forward a considered case for a universal atonement, presenting what I find to be the most compelling arguments for it, defining what exactly it entails, and interacting with the most common and persuasive objections against it.
This is part 6 of 6, in which I consider and confute the objection that a universal atonement would not actually secure or guarantee salvation for anyone.
On the atonement, part 5: universal salvation, or double payment
Posted on Monday, March 30, 2009 under papers • 3 comments • read it ⇒In this series, I forward a considered case for a universal atonement, presenting what I find to be the most compelling arguments for it, defining what exactly it entails, and interacting with the most common and persuasive objections against it.
This is part 5 of 6, in which I refute the objection that universal atonement entails either universal salvation, or a double payment for sins.
On the atonement, part 4: God’s desires frustrated?
Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2009 under papers • 6 comments • read it ⇒In this series, I forward a considered case for a universal atonement, presenting what I find to be the most compelling arguments for it, defining what exactly it entails, and interacting with the most common and persuasive objections against it.
This is part 4 of 6, in which I interact with the objection that universal atonement requires that God be at cross-purposes with himself, entertaining frustrated desires which he cannot fulfill.
On the atonement, part 3: the objective grounds for faith
Posted on Thursday, January 8, 2009 under papers • 4 comments • read it ⇒In this series, I forward a considered case for a universal atonement, presenting what I find to be the most compelling arguments for it, defining what exactly it entails, and interacting with the most common and persuasive objections against it.
This is part 3 of 6, in which I forward the argument that particular atonement provides no grounds for faith, and makes the assurance of salvation impossible.
On the atonement, part 2: the grounds for the universal gospel call
Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2008 under papers • 19 comments • read it ⇒In this series, I forward a considered case for a universal atonement, presenting what I find to be the most compelling arguments for it, defining what exactly it entails, and interacting with the most common and persuasive objections against it.
This is part 2 of 6, in which I forward the argument that particular atonement is inconsistent with the universal gospel call, whether it is conceived of as an invitation, or as a command only.
On the atonement, part 1: federal headship and forensic imputation
Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2008 under papers • 30 comments • read it ⇒In this series, I forward a considered case for a universal atonement, presenting what I find to be the most compelling arguments for it, defining what exactly it entails, and interacting with the most common and persuasive objections against it.
This is part 1 of 6, in which I forward the argument that particular atonement is inconsistent with what is revealed in Scripture about federal headship and forensic imputation: two doctrines central to Christ’s penal substitution.
On the atonement: introduction
Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 under papers • 2 comments • read it ⇒In this series, I forward a considered case for a universal atonement, presenting what I find to be the most compelling arguments for it, defining what exactly it entails, and interacting with the most common and persuasive objections against it.
This is the introduction to the series, in which I define the views under discussion, itemize my four arguments, and list the objections I’ll consider.