Varying Views of Grace

As a convert from Protestantism, one of the challenges was the concept of grace. It was taught, and still is, that justification and sanctification were an instantaneous barrage of grace that instantly transformed. Granted, this is more of a Baptist, view and can change based on denomination. This differs widely from the Catholic view that grace more of a renovation for the soul.

Protestant theology looks at grace as a forensic, or declarative, justification. The reformers saw the concept of concupiscence and took it a step further and said that man is totally depraved. This total depravity prevents man from doing anything good, and all good things done are done by God. Therefore, man is unable to do good even with the help of sanctifying grace. The work of Christ on the cross is therefore imputed to the sinners account when a faith in Christ is declared. Fr. John Hardon writes that in the Protestant view a sinner is “righteous by reason of the imputed merits of Christ and a sinner because his inherited guilt remains” (Hardon Ch.4). Justification is now a matter of declaration whereby the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinner making the Father see the sinner as righteous.

The is in stark contrast to the Catholic view that sees sanctifying grace as a transformative force that changes the sinner into a saint. The journey takes a lifetime and is fills with highs and lows. Through the sacrament of baptism all sin is washed away, and we have a clean slate. Through the voluntary of grace on a daily basis and is ours. Regarding this John Hardon states, “what we obtain is truly ours and no mere judicial attribution” (Hardon Ch.4). It is given to us to transform us, not merely to make a once time declaration and not change our nature. In the Protestant system we are not changed, and in the Catholic system Christ transforms us.

Works Cited

Hardon, John.  History and Theology of Grace.  Ann Arbor, MI:  Sapientia Press, 2005.


The Deeds of Jesus

Every Sunday in the creed we declare that Jesus is our Lord, but what does that mean?  What implications does that have on our lives?  In the Gospels Jesus tells us to love our neighbor (Mark 12:31), love God (Matthew 22:37), and show mercy (John 8:11).  How do his words correlate to his deeds, and what does that mean for us as his followers?  This post will take a deeper look at the scriptures referenced to illustrate how the words that Christ spoke correspond with his actions.

Jesus often spoke of what we now the call the perfect commandment.  Jesus spoke about loving God with all our heart and loving our neighbor as yourself.  The first verse mentioned above is Mark 12:31 which states, “The second is this ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’  There is no commandment greater than these” (NRSV).  To love your neighbor means so much more than greeting them when they are in their front yard.  Whether they treated him as he deserved or not, Jesus showed compassion to everyone (Collins 51).  He healed the centurion’s servant in Matthew 8:13, St. Peter’s mother in law in Matthew 8:14, and healed a multitude in Matthew 14:14.  In healing the centurion’s servant in Matthew 8:13, Jesus shows that his salvation is for Jew and Gentile alike.  In addition, this was a member of the occupying government and an enemy of the Jewish people.  He shows us what we must do with those we do not agree with.  We must still them as people as they are created in the image of God.

To go along with loving our neighbor, Jesus tells us “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind” (Matthew 22:37 NRSV).  How is loving God a deed of Jesus?  As the Son of God he is the only way to the Father, and Christ said we can only know the Father through him (John 14:6).  To love God with all your heart is to go where he leads and to do what he is telling us to do.  In short, we must follow his will if we love him with our whole being.  Jesus demonstrated this is many ways, with the most notable being his Passion.

In the garden of Gethsemane, we see the human will of Jesus manifesting itself.  He is so terrified about what he must endure that he begins to sweat drops of blood (Luke 22:44).  This is a medical condition known as Hematidrosis, and occurs when an individual in experiencing extreme stress.  He prayed that he may not have to endure, and this shows he is human.  He was scared, and above all it means he can relate to what we go through.  Though he was terrified, Christ knew his mission and because of his overwhelming love we are redeemed.

In John chapter 8 Jesus encounters a group of Pharisees who are circling a woman and looking to stone her for the sin of adultery.  According to Leviticus 20:10 this was the consequence for such an action, but adultery takes two people.  The woman was about to get stoned, but where was the man?  It is speculated that the man was in the crowd that was wanting to stone the woman, and this was a way to trap Jesus.  He knew what was going on, and said if someone present has never sinned then he could throw the stone (John 8:7).  Jesus told her to stop sinning, and did not condemn her.  He forgave her for the sin by saying “Neither do I condemn you.  Go your way, and from now on do not sin again” (John 8:11 NRSV).  Jesus showed mercy and did not just talk about it.  We see this several times in the Gospels, but this example is significant as the penalty was death for such a sin.  He gave the woman a new life and hope, and tells us to do the same.


Image result for jesus


Works Cited

O’ Collins, Gerald. Jesus: A Portrait. New York: Maryknoll, 2013

Martin Luther and the Cross of Christ

Martin Luther is a name that all Christians have heard, but most take the name for granted.  They know him as the leader of the Protestant Reformation, and rightfully so as his theological endeavors led to a split from the Catholic Church.  Though this was a sad time in history, Luther was a brilliant theologian and he blessed Christendom with many theological insights.  One such insight into the cross of Christ, and to Luther authentic Christian theology was included the theology of the cross.

In the time of Christ, the cross was an instrument of torture and death.  People were left to hang for hours until they suffocated.  It was a brutal death and was mostly used to serve as an example to political rivals.  In the view of Luther, the cross represented two different things.  Firstly, the cross represented the evil of sin and the promise of the judgement of God.  However, as sinners we are forced to face the judgement of God.  In his holiness we become afraid, and we when we confront this fear we come to recognize it as something entirely different.  We come to recognize it as the mercy and love of almighty God.  In this regard, the cross becomes good because it represents the very instrument of our salvation. We see this in Luther’s Commentary on St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians where he writes, “Christ is Lord over the law, because he was crucified unto the law.  I also am Lord over the Law, because by faith I am crucified with Christ” (Luther 44).  Here we see Luther’s theology of the cross played to its logical conclusion.  In the crucifixion, Christ makes something good out of a horrible situation.  An instrument that was used to torture and kill is now seen as an instrument of love and mercy.  The salvation received is passive on our part because Christ did all that was needed.  We accept salvation when the law drives us to desperation (as it did for Luther) and thus to faith in the mercy of God revealed in the cross.  Basically, Luther was teaching that a Christian was one who had the righteousness of Christ imputed to him.  Regarding this Luther writes, “In short, Christ was charged with the sins of all men, that he should pay for the with his own blood.  The curse struck him.  The law found him among sinners” (Luther 68).  In exchange for taking our sin upon his shoulders, the Father now sees us as righteous.  According to Luther, when this happens the righteousness of Christ is imputed into the Christian.

This was a great consolation to Luther and not a terror.  Luther was plagued by fear and anxiety for many years.  In his early years as a monk, Luther fell into nominalist tendencies.  He was trying to do everything within his being to please God, but when we do it on our own we are doomed to frustration and not feeling good enough.  This is what happened to Luther, as he thought that doing works would then lead to God giving him grace.  This is what Luther called“an experience in hell” and led to Luther hating God.  His insight into the cross of Christ allowed him to see the victory that the cross stood for.  It was now a symbol of great joy, and no longer a cause of pain and anxiety.


Luther, Martin.  Commentary on St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. Project Gutenberg. Web. Accessed December 9, 2017.

Patristic Theories of Redemption

The fathers of the early church fought very hard to preserve orthodox teaching regarding the person of Christ.  There were numerous assaults on his divinity and nature, and the Council of Chalcedon seemed to put the issue to rest for good.  The teaching that Jesus Christ, was eternal, always existed, is fully divine, and fully human was now put to rest.  Though this was crucial part in the Christological story, it was not complete.  The Church fathers wrestled with various theories regarding Christ.  These theories did not deal with who Jesus was, but dealt with what he did to redeem us.  In this paper, three patristic will be discussed along with what is common among them.

One of the redemptive theories discussed in the Patristic period was the Pedagogical or Christ-the-teacher theory of salvation.  This theory teaches that Christ with a new knowledge, or law and demonstrated this with the example of his life.  The idea that Christ is our example is a theme throughout much of the New Testament.  There are many passages, but 1 Peter 2:21 specifically mentions that Christ is an example for us to follow.  That passage of scripture states, “For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps” (NRSV).  The concept of a new knowledge from God is also present outside of scripture in some of the earliest Christian writings.  Regarding this Joseph Mitros writes, Such expressions such as ‘Immortal knowledge’ ‘new knowledge’…recur quite often in the Didache, the First of Clement and the Shepherd of hermas” (Mitros 418).

Another theory set forth in the patristic era was known as the recapitulation theory.  This theory was made popular by St. Irenaeus, and taught that Christ rescued humanity by “recapitulating in himself the whole human race” (Mitros 416).  St Irenaeus found support for this theory in the writings of St. Paul.  One such passage from Paul is Romans 5:18-19 which states, “Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all.  For just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (NRSV).  Since Adam was the cause of the fall, Christ came to live the life that Adam should have.  As a result, we are now redeemed and restored to the life we once had prior to Adam (Mitros 427).

A third theory that arose in the Patristic age is the transactional theory.  It is known better as the Christus Victor theory.  This theory claims that a ransom had be paid to Satan for the redemption of humanity.  The ransom was supposed to be part of a kind of contractual obligation between God and Satan.  There are no passages in scripture that speak of such a contract, but there was an understanding in the early church about the term slavery.  Humanity were slaves to Satan, and Christ died to redeem them.  In this regard Joseph Mitros states, “Now, the term of redemption, understood within the context of slavery, meant a liberation of a slave upon the payment of a ransom to the owner” (Mitros 422).  Gregory of Nyssa elaborated this view by introducing the concept of a fishing hook.  Just as in fishing, Satan clamped down on this hook (i.e. Christ), and found a surprise.  This surprise was the claims of all the souls taken from the devil.

There are many other theories that were developed and discussed during the Patristic era.  As has been seen, there is quite a range in belief and teaching.  However, there is one constant that stands out among them.  The redemption that is found in Christ and seeks to transform individual persons (Lecture Notes).  That is what the fathers sought to do in these various theories.

Works Cited

Mitros, Joseph. “Patristic Views of Christ’s Salvific Work,” Thought 42 (1967), 415-447.

True Freedom

It has been a little while since the last blog entry.  My wife and I had the opportunity to go on a well deserved family vacation out of state.  With that being said, in the United States we celebrate out birthday as a nation.  So to my fellow Americans have a safe and happy 4th of July.

There are many definitions for freedom, but on of them is “the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved (”  Many are walking around saying that they are free, but are they truly free?  I submit to you that without Christ they are not truly free.  It is popular in our society for many to say “This is a free country.  I can do what I want.”  True…but you are also free to suffer the consequences of such actions.  If one is not living in Christ, and living in sin then the said consequence is death.  Romans 6:23 states, “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (ESV).”

We all have sinned, and that consequence is that our physical bodies will die.  That is a reality, and there is nothing we can do to change that.  It will happen.  There is much more to live than the physical, and the reality is that sin would not be so appealing if the wages were paid immediately.  What will happen when we die?  Our physical bodies are decomposing, but what about our soul?  Without Christ will spend eternity away from him.  As a result our sin has still enslaved us long after we sop breathing.  Romans 5:8 states, “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”  Christ died for our sin and it is a free gift if we believe.  Romans 10:9 also states, “If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is LORD,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”

This is a short post compared to ones I normally write.  Though it is short it is my prayer that you see that true freedom is found only in Christ.  It is through Christ that we have salvation and the forgiveness for anything wrong we have ever done.  As a result we are no longer slaves to out sinful nature.  We will still sin, but we have an advocate.  1 John 2:1-2 states, “My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.”

God bless you all, and remember that true freedom is found only in Christ.

Check out my books on amazon at William Hemsworth author page.

Book Review: Four Views of the Warning Passages in Hebrews

The letter to the Hebrews is a letter that has perplexed scholars through the centuries.  Depending on one’s theological tradition there may be different ways to exegete the treasures within.  Four Views of the Warning Passages in Hebrews provides a platform for four prominent New Testament scholars who layout their viewpoint in a systematic fashion.

The four viewpoints contained within the work are the Arminian, Classical reformed, Wesleyan Arminian, and the modified reformed perspectives[1].  The four scholars who contribute to the work are as follows:  Grant Osborne presents the classical Arminian position, Buist Fanning with classical reformed, Gareth Cockerill with the Wesleyan Arminian, and Randall Gleason with the moderate reformed position[2].  Each contributor is given ample space to defend their position.  Though there are four contributors, it is important to mention the editor Herbert Bateman and George Guthrie who concludes the work with some final remarks.  Both are fantastic scholars and have impressive bodies of work.  So what are the warning passages, and why are they important?  The editor Herbert Bateman says it best when he writes, “The warning passage clearly force us to address the issue of assurance and the doctrine of eternal security[3].”


A debate that has raged for centuries is that between Calvinists and Arminians.  The classical reformed, or Calvinist view, emphasizes the sovereignty of God.  A person will not be saved until God first acts to regenerate a person.  The Classical Arminian view is that God acts to convict a person so they can make a choice utilizing their God given free will[4].  Grant Osborne spends some time describing the controversy because it is vital to the Arminian position.  That position being that there must be a balance between the Sovereignty of God and the free will of man.

Were the recipients of the Epistle to the Hebrews really Christians?  Osborne concludes that there were some that were genuine regenerate Christians.  This is seen by some of the language used in the book.  Osborne speaks to the is matter, “This fits well with the descriptions above; indeed, it is hard to see this language as fitting those who are members of the church but nor actually saved.  Such strong depictions can hardly describe such people-they must be actual believers[5].”

Osborne stays true to the classical Arminian view that a truly regenerate person can still turn their back on the faith.  Though some were saved they will not receive their reward because they did not persevere[6].  Osborne wrote this passage with Hebrew 3:7-19 in mind as it mentions the children of Israel in the wilderness.



The Wesleyan Arminian view is authored by Gareth Cockerill who has written an impressive commentary on Hebrews.  Cockerill agrees with Osborne’s assessment on Hebrews apostasy teachings[7].  Cockerill spends a great deal of time dealing with the warning passages in Hebrews 2:1-4.  In so doing he takes a different conclusion than Osborne in regards to believers losing their eternal reward for unbelief.  Cockerill writes, “while the writer addresses all of the believers as true believers, some do not have genuine faith[8].”  If they did not have genuine faith then they did not have true faith.  As a result, they could not truly apostatize since they were never believers to begin with.  They will face what Cockerill describes as “Repudiation and lethargy[9].”



Randall Gleason starts his portion of the work with great praise for the work of Grant Osborne.  This is refreshing as many Arminian and Reformed theologians seem up in arms with each other.  Osborne quickly moves from praise to a disagreement with the recipients of the letter.  He provides evidence that the letter was meant for believers in Jerusalem, and states that it is warning of judgment upon the nation of Israel[10].  Gleason points out that the evidence that the letter went to a church in Rome is not without merit, but inconclusive.  It is inconclusive since the Septuagint and other Greek manuscripts were found in Palestine, and evidence from Qumran show that they also used the Greek text.

Gleason agrees in part with Osborne’s view of the apostasy described in the letter, but takes it a little further.  In regards to the apostasy Gleason writes, “Hebrews refers to deliberate covenant unfaithfulness that would incite God to discipline his people[11].”  Gleason then describes Hebrews chapters 3-4 and the retelling of the Israelites in the wilderness in a typological sense.  Throughout salvation history anything done with Israel has been done through faith.  Israel’s faith in the Lord and their deliverance from Egypt serves as a type for salvation in the rest of scripture[12].  As a result, disobedience for believers brings about the denial of blessings, but not a loss of salvation.



Buist Fanning takes the fourth view in Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews.  He is very honest and upfront by saying that some may not see his view as thoroughly reformed.  Fanning makes the argument that, on the surface, the letter to the Hebrews makes a damaging case on the reformed doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints.  Fanning deals with all warning passages, but Hebrews 6:4-6 will be focused on for consistency with the critiques for the other views.  Fanning makes the case, similar to that of Gleason, that Israel “experienced God’s blessings corporately as part of a covenant community.  When most of them fell due to rebellion and unbelief, it was evident that they were not inwardly and truly members of God’s people[13].”  Only true believers persevere and if they do not they were never really in the ranks of the believers.  To truly understand Hebrews, we must look at the overall theology of the letter, and not bits and pieces.



Overall the work is very well done and informative.  It is challenging as it offers four different theological opinions.  Some may wonder if four views on the warning passages is needed, but it is something that is important.  Having the four views forces the reader to consider other interpretations and will allow one to gain a better understanding of the material.

A great strength of the work is the exegesis contained within.  Four brilliant scholars parse Greek terms, and look at history to delve into the true meaning of the epistle.  Even if one does not agree with a particular view there is likely some points within the said view that would be beneficial.

Overall there were not many weaknesses with the work, but it may have been able to be condensed to a smaller volume.  The introduction, though highly informative, was daunting.  Most introductions are fairly short and give a brief over view, but the introduction in Four Views could have easily been a book of its own as it came in at nearly 80 pages.



Four Views of the Warning Passages in Hebrews provides four very interesting views of the Hebrews.  Though I am not a Calvinist I feel that the moderate reformed view laid out by Randall Gleason works best.  He lays out the problem passages in view of covenantal theology and typology to arrive at his determinations.  This makes sense given that the letter itself does the same in laying out salvation history from the fathers to Christ.

The work is a valuable asset for anyone who plans to teach or study the letter to the Hebrews.  It will challenge one’s view and provide different viewpoints to help grow in knowledge and faith.  It is written in such a way that the everyday layman can pick it up and understand what is going on.  It is a must for everyone who is serious about the study of scripture.








Bateman, Herbert W., ed. Four Views of the Warning Passages in Hebrews. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2007.

[1] Herbert W. Bateman, ed., Four Views of the Warning Passages in Hebrews (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2007), Kindle Location 24.

[2] Ibid, Kindle Location. 10.

[3] Ibid, Kindle Location 112.

[4] Herbert W. Bateman, ed., Four Views of the Warning Passages in Hebrews (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2007), Kindle Location 526.

[5] Ibid, Kindle Location 559.

[6] Ibid, Kindle Location 666.

[7] Herbert W. Bateman, ed., Four Views of the Warning Passages in Hebrews (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2007), Kindle Location 1011.

[8] Ibid, Kindle Location 1104.

[9] Ibid, Kindle Location 1121.

[10] Ibid, Kindle Location 1135.

[11] Herbert W. Bateman, ed., Four Views of the Warning Passages in Hebrews (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2007), Kindle Location 1170.

[12] Ibid, 1181.

[13] Herbert W. Bateman, ed., Four Views of the Warning Passages in Hebrews (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2007), Kindle Location 1294.

Thank you Jesus!

What did Jesus do to save us?  The importance of this question is one that has a real possibility to be understated.  It is a question that has been asked for all of church history, and theologians have debated it for centuries.  The reason is because it is the eternal question with eternal significance.  The nature of the question lies within the very nature of the Gospel itself.  Within the scope of this paper we briefly look at how Gregory the Great, Anselm, and Albrecht Ritschl answered the question.  In addition a look into how John Calvin modified Anselm’s theory will be discussed, and a look at the Moral Influence theory of atonement looked at along with it must be rejected.

Gregory the Great was the last of the Latin doctors of the church and was the first Pope to use the phrase “Servant of the servants of God[1].”  He believed Augustine was the greatest church father and he applied the soteriology of Augustine in a synergistic nature[2].  Synergism coordinates the human will and divine grace as both being factors in conversion[3].  This played heavily into how Gregory answered the question presented.  To get the grace needed one had to be crucified with Christ.  This meant having an attitude of extreme repentance, doing penance, self-denial (of most if not all bodily pleasures), partake in the sacraments of the church, and do works of love[4].  He also started to formalize the medieval doctrine of purgatory.  In his view Jesus died on the cross for the sins of man.  Faith was needed, but man had to constantly show that he was in a state of penance.  According to Scholar Roger Olson, “His theology had the effect-perhaps unintended-of destroying any sense of assurance or security about salvation for most medieval Christians[5].”

A few centuries later Anselm asked “Cur Deus Homo?  i.e. Why did God become man[6].”  Anselm saw the atonement in a way different then the popular Ransom theory.  Anselm believed that, for the atonement to be sufficient, then Christ had to be human and divine[7].  In regards to this theory Paul Enns writes, “God chose to resolve the matter (of sin) through satisfaction by the gift of his son[8].”  Since the honor of God was restored through the sacrifice of Christ sinners reap the reward of forgiveness of sins through faith.

From Anselm and Gregory the Great we now turn to 19th century liberal Protestant theology.  One of the leaders in this brand of theology was an individual by the name of Albrecht Ritschl.  He said to separate Christianity from science and separated it into two basic truth claims.  The claims in question are judgment of fact and judgment of value[9].  According to Ritschl Christ saved us by giving us the Kingdom of God on Earth.  This is done by humanity uniting themselves in love without a teaching about Heaven, Hell, or the afterlife.  In essence Christianity, according to Ritschl, is reduced to a system of moralism[10].  His system could be summed up by saying that the sacrifice of Christ changed men’s moral attitudes and caused them to accept God’s rule in their lives[11].

As previously discussed, in Anselm we find the Satisfaction theory of atonement.  Since man sinned then a sacrifice had to be made by a human, but the whole human race is tainted by sin.  The only acceptable sacrifice was Christ who was fully God and fully man.  Through Christ honor was restored to God.  The Protestant reformer John Calvin looked to modify Anselm’s theory.  John Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, put forth the Penal Substitution theory of atonement.  This development stated that Christ died in our place, and he was punished where we should have been punished.  In regards to this John Calvin writes, “clothed with his righteousness, we can bravely surmount all the insults of the world: and as he replenishes us liberally with his gifts, so we can in our turn bring forth fruit unto his glory[12].”

What did Jesus do to save us?  Three individuals were looked at, and three theories were briefly discussed.  In regards to the theories of atonement touched on it is clear that evangelicals must reject the moral influence theory.  The theory is inadequate to describe the atoning work of the savior.  In regards to this the Franklin Johnson states, “The theory makes the death of Christ predominantly scenic, spectacular, an effort to display the love of God rather than an offering to God in its nature necessary for the salvation of man[13].”  In this theory Christ dies not to free man from the penalty of sin, but to bring about a new system of morality.  There is nothing about repentance, God’s holiness, God’s Justice, or God’s mercy in this theory.  The atonement and salvation are not a moral exercise because a proper confession comes before salvation[14].  Christ died for the sins of man, not to be a martyr for a morally superior society, though that should be a result of true conversion.

I now leave you with a few passages from scripture that help answer this question.

John 10:11- “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.”

Galatians 3:13-“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.”

Isaiah 53:4-6- “Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.  But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray;     we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.”

1 Peter 3:18- “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.”

2 Corinthians 5:21- “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

1 Peter 2:24- “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.”

Jesus died for our sins and his finished work on the cross is perfect.  When we trust him by faith we are clothe in his righteous robe.  Thank you Jesus for this awesome gift that I do not deserve.


[1] Erwin Fahlbrusch et al, ed., Encyclopedia of Christianity, vol. 2, (Boston, MA: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 471.

[2] Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1999), 287.

[3] Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1910), 786.

[4] Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1999), 288.

[5] Ibid, 289.

[6] Fred Sanders and Klaus Issler, eds., Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 2007), 157.

[7] Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1999), 323.

[8] Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2014), 334.

[9] Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1999), 548.

[10] Ibid, 548.

[11] J.D. Douglas and Philip Comfort, eds., Who’s Who in Church History (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale Publishers, 1992), 574.

[12] “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” Calvin College, accessed June 24, 2016,

[13] Franklin Johnson, The Fundamentals, ed. R.A. Torrey and A.C. Dixon, vol. 3, (Los Angeles, CA: Bible Institute Of Los Angeles, 1917), 68.

[14] Malcolm B Yarnell, The Formation of Christian Doctrine (Nashville, TN: B&h Academic, 2007), 191.

Blog at

Up ↑