“In many ways the book [Saving Calvinism] is trying to argue for a more popular audience things I've said in some more scholarly works, namely, that the Reformed tradition is broader and more variegated than is often reported today, and that we need to recapture something of this in order that we don't end up unnecessarily narrow in our doctrine and in order to keep some perspective.” WayNeedsTryingSaidBookEndsTodayOrderAudiencePerspectiveTraditionArguingDoctrineSavingScholarlyCalvinism Author:Oliver D. Crisp
“In the chapter on the nature of the atonement [in the book saving Calvinism] I argue that it is a mistake to think that penal substitution is the only option on the doctrine of atonement.” ThinkingBookMistakeArguingDoctrineSavingChaptersAtonementSubstitutionCalvinism Author:Oliver D. Crisp
“There is the view I call penal non-substitution, or the penal example view. (It is also called the Governmental View in textbooks of theology.) This is often associated with Arminian theology stemming from the great Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius. However, the view was taken up by [Jonathan] Edwards's disciples in New England, who developed a Calvinistic strand of the doctrine.” ViewsTakenExampleEnglandTheologyDoctrineDiscipleTextbooksDutchStrandsNew EnglandSubstitutionJurists Author:Oliver D. Crisp
“Jonathan Edwards developed a Calvinistic strand of the doctrine.” DoctrineStrands Author:Oliver D. Crisp
“For instance, there are many mainstream Reformed theologians that deny the doctrine of "limited" atonement (the "L" in TULIP, the acrostic for the Five Points of Calvinism). These are not thinkers on the margins or troublemakers. They are leaders at the center of Reformed thinking like Bishop John Davenant.” ThinkingLeaderFiveDenyDoctrineInstanceThinkerMainstreamTheologianMarginsBishopsAtonementCalvinismTroublemaker Author:Oliver D. Crisp
“It is often reported that the Five Points of Calvinism are the conceptual hard-core of Reformed thought. That is very misleading. The Five Points supposedly originate with the Synod of Dort in the early seventeenth century. Yet we find important Reformed leaders who were signatories to that documentation who don't think that limited atonement is the right way to think about the scope of Christ's saving work. How can this be? The answer that recent historical theology has thrown up is that the canons of the Synod don't require adherence to the doctrine of limited atonement.” ThinkingWayImportantHardChristAnswersLeaderFiveCenturyHistoricalCoreTheologyDoctrineSavingThrownRight WayScopeMisleadAtonementCanonAdherenceCalvinismDocumentationHard Core Author:Oliver D. Crisp
