-
Ponter vs. The Westminster Confession of Faith
Ponter writes: One could say, “But such and such later Reformed confession or theologian denies this theology.” To that we would say, “So what? How does citing a man or confession a century or more later, disprove the historical truth that earlier Reformation theologians held to unlimited expiation and redemption? It doesn’t. In terms of…
-
Ponter’s Last Stand
Ponter seems to be unable to justify his position with respect to Bullinger and has reduced himself to simply insulting those with whom he disagrees. (link to insult-riddled post)Leaving aside the barrage of insults, I’ll summarize his points (implicit and explicit), and explain why they don’t avail him any support. 1) Mischaracterization of the Criticism…
-
Unlimited Atonement Clarification
I want to add a piece of clarification regarding yesterday’s Unlimited Atonement rebuttal post. The clarification is this: 1) I realize that there are people who say that they hold to Unlimited Atonement who do not hold to Universal Redemption. How that is supposed to be a possible distinction is a fascinating study, but not…
-
Unlimited Atonement is not a Reformed Doctrine
David Ponter writes: “What is clear now, beyond any doubt whatsoever, is that the doctrine of unlimited atonement was a Reformed doctrine. The evidence now is of such efficacy that only a proverbial fool would insist otherwise.” (source) a) Mr. Ponter should not use big words he doesn’t understand. Evidence is not “of … efficacy”…
-
Warfield’s Famous Chart on the Plan of Salvation
Since the topic of Supralapsarianism, Infralapsarianism, Amyraldianism, and Arminianism have come up repeatedly on this blog, I think it may be helpful for my readers to have a chance to those different views arranged in textbook fashion by B. B. Warfield: Please note that you will probably have to click on the image to be…