Sublime

John Henry Newman,

Practical antinomianism has many forms today.

Why, then, would Peter pick these moments, his moments of greatest infamy, as his grounds for qualification? Because he knows what Christ’s suffering purchased for him. Total forgiveness, total security, total justification. Peter brings to mind Christ’s death on the cross as the central point in his own pastoral vision and connects this vision to

In the 18th century itself, William Paley (Natural Theology; Evidences) argued for the soundness of the biblical witness—both as to God’s hand in nature and as to the soundness of the New Testament portrait of Jesus;9 and Thomas Sherlock pointed out, in his legally orientated work The Tryal of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus, that people

When LGBTQ evangelicals, their families, and allies start pressing for dignity and even full inclusion, they begin their arguments from within an evangelical theological framework. Eventually they tend to discover that evangelical ways of reading Scripture and, more broadly, of observing reality and discerning truth, may themselves be the problem.

In other words, in much popular modern Christian thought we have made a three-layered mistake. We have Platonized our eschatology (substituting “souls going to heaven” for the promised new creation) and have therefore moralized our anthropology (substituting a qualifying examination of moral performance for the biblical notion of the human vocation

Stanley E. Porter,

Schaeffer’s own Reformed theology undercuts classical apologetics insofar as it is committed to the “noetic effects of sin”—that is, the effects of sin on the mind, distorting both what counts as true and what can be recognized as true for the unbeliever (Rom. 1:18–22; 1 Cor. 2).