Roger Olson responds to Al Mohler’s defense of limited atonement. In part he writes, “Again, let me be clear, I do not reject five point Calvinists as heretics or non-Christians or even as non-evangelicals. I simply could not preach the gospel alongside someone who cannot say with me to any group of people that God loves them, wants them to be saved, and has provided for their redemption by means of Christ’s death on the cross. That is what a five point Calvinist cannot say and, in my opinion, it is part and parcel of the whole gospel.”
Could you be a Gnostic and not even know it? Look here to find out.
A new website devoted to inerrancy.
Larry Hurtado questions a common assumption in critical scholarship on whether Jesus thought of himself as divine. He starts his post, “First, a quote: “The Church cannot indefinitely continue to believe about Jesus what he did not know to be true about himself,” J. W. Bowman, The Intention of Jesus (London: SCM, 1945), p. 108.
This is not really a historical claim but a theological one, and it reflects a common assumption: The assumption that the theological/religious validity of claims about Jesus rest upon what Jesus believed and taught about himself. In my book, Lord Jesus Christ (pp. 5-9), I’ve noted the irony of how this assumption has been shared by critics and advocates of Christian faith, and also how it has worked mischief in the historical investigation of Christian origins.”
Sam Storms asks, “Can the ‘Prosperity Gospel’ Really Be That Bad?”
Terrance Tiessen offers some intriguing thoughts on “The Righteousness of Christ: Imputed, Infused, Incorporated.”