John Milbank claims that Reformed theology has allowed Pelagianism to come in under the guise of a covenant theology that includes the covenant of works (especially when the Mosaic covenant is treated as a covenant of works). The problem with Reformed theology, Milbank argues, is its insufficient . . . . Continue Reading »
In a footnote to the aforementioned article, Muller briefly discusses the medieval debates about the atonement. He points out that the medieval doctors stressed the passive obedience almost to the exclusion of the active; the active obedience was merely preparatory, making Christ acceptable or . . . . Continue Reading »
Well, Barth at least agrees that there is a nature/grace dualism implicit in the infralapsarian position. Strikingly, he points to the danger of anthropocentrism in supralapsarianism, arguing that by making the salvation of individual x and the damnation of individual y the primary purpose of the . . . . Continue Reading »
I’m poring over Barth and Berkhouwer on decrees and election, and seem to be making some progress. Try this: The doctrine of the decree is not merely that everything is predetermined. When the decree is formulated this way, it is hard to distinguish from determinism, and the decree has very . . . . Continue Reading »
Back to supra/infra: On reflection, I think the main issue in my rethinking of this has been my hostility to any nature-grace scheme, which seems to be encouraged by the infra position. In the infra framework, creation exists (in the decree of God) as creation, without being considered as the . . . . Continue Reading »
I have long considered the debate of infra and supralapsarianism a classic example of the excesses of Reformed orthodoxy and scholasticism. I still like Bavinck’s even-handed treatment of the issues in his Doctrine of God . But I have to confess I’ve been thinking lately more as a . . . . Continue Reading »
Some impressive quotations from Muller’s Christ and the Decree (p. 36): This is Calvin ( Inst 2.12.1): In discerning Christ’s merit, we do not consider the beginning of merit to be in him, but we go back to God’s ordinance as the first cause. For God solely of his own good . . . . Continue Reading »
Some time ago, John Robbins put my name in a list of theologians influenced by Daniel Fuller and John Piper. (I was in the good company of John Frame, Dick Gaffin, and others, so I was actually honored.) The funny thing was, that I had read almost nothing of either Fuller or Piper. So I could live . . . . Continue Reading »
I’ve long thought that open theology, the notion that God does not and cannot know future contingent events, is simply consistent Arminian theology. Richard Muller’s description of Arminius’s view of “middle knowledge” (in God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought . . . . Continue Reading »
Subscribe
Latest Issue
Support First Things
