Penal Non-substitution
There are two broad historic approaches to the so-called governmental view of the atonement (which is better described, from its defining characteristic, as penal non-substitution): the Grotian or Arminian version, and the New England or Calvinistic version. The important differences of emphasis bet...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Oxford University Press
2008
|
| In: |
The journal of theological studies
Year: 2008, Volume: 59, Issue: 1, Pages: 140-168 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | There are two broad historic approaches to the so-called governmental view of the atonement (which is better described, from its defining characteristic, as penal non-substitution): the Grotian or Arminian version, and the New England or Calvinistic version. The important differences of emphasis between these two approaches are re-examined. One version of the doctrine, drawing on the work of the New England theologian Jonathan Edwards Jnr (1745–1801), is defended against several criticisms often made of the theory. It is argued that, although not without problems, penal non-substitution is a robust account of atonement that should be taken much more seriously than it has been in the recent literature. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1477-4607 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: The journal of theological studies
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1093/jts/flm147 |