-
Ponter and Paul on Sincerity (revisited)
David Ponter is a Unicornucopia of error in his attempt to challenge the “sincere offer.” My friend Paul has already provided a general response pointing out that a flaw of Ponter’s analogy is denial of omnipotence. Let’s take it a step further. Ponter’s idea is expressed through this analogy: David says to his friend Paddy,…
-
Sincere Offer, Election, and Limited Atonement
My friend Paul has posted a response to David Ponter’s response to James Anderson’s comments on Limited Atonement and the Free Offer. It’s a very detailed and worth reading. Allow me to post some shorter thoughts on the topic, namely the objection: Is the “free offer” of the gospel really “sincere” if Jesus only died…
-
Muller on the Reformation
The following is a very brief response I had written and placed on hold some time ago, but which I might as well post now. After that is some more recent news, brought to my attention by the helpful folks at Historical Theoblogy. *** Older Portion *** I’ve perceived that Ponter, battered and bruised by…
-
Phillip Johnson and Amyraldianism
Phillip Johnson has an article (to which Trey Austin thoughtfully directed me) in which he provides a fairly helpful and quick guide to some distinctions among Evangelical views of the order of decrees, ranging from Supralapsarianism to Arminianism. In the section on what Johnson prefers to call Amyraldism (as opposed to Amyraldianism), Johnson states: “Puritan…
-
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 Part II
Continued from part I (link) … Before I continue, I should point out that I had mentioned in my last post that “It’s not really clear whether Ponter understands what non-speculative hypothetical universalism is.” The expression “hypothetical universalism” is a technical term of theology that has itself had a range of meanings. I had suspected…
-
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”…
-
Further Response from Trey
Trey has (I think) clarified that he does not want to come down on the matter of the Atonement one way or another. “There are lots of folks who don’t want to come down on the matter one way or another. R. L. Dabney was one of those. David Ponter is also one. But like…