resubmitting my looonngg comment with corrections:
LAURA!!!!! YEEEEEESSSS!! For so long I have been picking apart the tenets of Reformed ? theology to find the root cause of so much of the oppressive behavior I and my pastor husband are experiencing in the PCA. "Justification" indeed! Justification for chronic deafness resulting in mistreatment of so many. It's a weird, sort of masochistic twist on suffering I think, verifying the worthiness of Christ thus justifying one's own unworthiness and the wrath of the Father poured out on the Son. Sick, actually.
When I found out that there were other atonement theories in addition to penal substitutionary atonement (PSA), I was so thrilled and felt that at last I had found the flaw in the theological ointment (PSA). I posted a podcast episode on it on my Fb page. Holy hell broke loose on me. I was "turned in" by Session members of our PCA church to my husband, WHO IS THE PASTOR and he to this day is fighting being ousted. I had no idea what a theological landmine I was stepping on. There is something inherently appealing and validating to evangelical Christians' sense of masculinity about PSA. PSA, justification, the whole legal/judicial approach is so non-relational and (purportedly) objective, gives the illusion of control, certainty, power, and authority. It is telling that few female voices or perspectives are heard in these circles, and that female leadership is viewed as "Biblically" forbidden in them.
I'm not finished excavating this and understanding how it explains my own story of abusive "faith." Perhaps by doing so, others may recognize their own confusion and oppression and find Jesus at the bottom off it all. I'm catching glimpses of Him now and then, and learning to trust my ear in hearing His voice.
Lisa, I’m with you in seeing PSA as a driving force in so much of the oppressive/abusive power structures in the church. I’m so sorry for how you’ve been treated. I’m currently in a PCA church (fled here after abuse in an SBC/A29 church) and worried about what will happen if I openly question some of these doctrines. I hope you and your husband make it out of this safely -- however that looks -- and I hope your voice has prompted others to question and rethink harmful teaching.
Hi Joy, I've learned about Christus Victor as an atonement theory from Jennifer Bashaw through The Bible for Normal People (which I credit for saving my sanity and my faith!) but haven't read a book in it. I'm seeing one in Jennifer's recommended reading list by Gustaf Aulén. Is that the one to which you are referring? I have a copy of René Girard's "The Scapegoat" but haven't read it yet.
Yes, Aulen’s book is what I was referring to. It was very helpful to me! I discovered it through Fleming Rutledge’s book The Crucifixion, which first made me aware there even were other theories of atonement.
Fleming Rutledge was invited to speak at a PCA church in NY and the presbytery of
that church is being rebuked by the SJC for not bringing the church under discipline. The church didn't see that having her speak constituted preaching (preaching is permitted only for ordained individuals, and female ordination is forbidden in PCA's Book of Church Order (BOC)).
Makes me wonder how "preaching" is defined in the BOC. What constitutes preaching? Exegeting Scripture? What if a woman with a seminary degree presumes to exegete Scripture and speak it out loud? She's permitted to do this to women's groups in the PCA, but not to mixed groups, and in some churches not even to boys of a certain age. I don't know what happens if she is a wife and shares Scripture she has exegeted with her husband or if she's a mom and shares such with her own son.What if she writes it in a book and a man reads it?
Is preaching defined as speaking from the pulpit? Speaking w confidence and authority?
On second thought, what if a man actually learns something from a woman? Did she preach?
I want to say “that’s unbelievable!” ... but it’s not, unfortunately. I wish more men in the PCA would take seriously the questions you’re asking rather than using the BOC to baptize their male privilege.
I am so sad there are men who would rather not hear the gospel at all than hear it from a woman’s voice.
Well, now you've left us with a cliffhanger - that's not fair! I need solutions! lol, really though this is great as usual and very thoughtful, thanks for sharing your thoughts with the internet, we all appreciate the work.
This really resonated with me. I am so glad that you say you are going to address alternative ways of thinking about all this as I feel very much in the "muddle" of all my thinking. This compounded by the effects of childhood trauma (yes still/even now/ after so much therapeutic work that has and is making differences) has made me feel so "bad" at being a Christian and now I am not sure what to think.
When my son, 35yo, was nine years old, he said, "Mom, if we're saved by faith from going to hell but faith is a gift from God, what if God chooses not to give a
I went through a long theobro journey trying to figure it all out so I could know for certain I wasn't going to hell. Hung out with some Calvinists in college. Etc. Also went on a journey with mental health that made me severely untrustworthy of my own mental faculties.
All to decide that, if my salvation is truly in my hands, I am truly effed up. Or as they say, damned. I must rely on someone or something else to get me through, not just the Test of Eternity, but the test of this life.
So I used to joke with my Calvinist buddies that I was more Calvinist than they were - for I believed that God could save me in spite of my atheism, agnosticism, in spite of my silly theological notions, in spite of my ignorance or confusion or inconsistence or depression. I believed that God could (and secretly enjoyed) saving idiots in spite of themselves.
At the moment, I'm theologically convinced that Jesus did not take heaven and hell or even the afterlife as seriously as modern evangelicals do, so I'm content to not take it that seriously either. I do need salvation from the crappy things I do to the people around me, and the relationships I'm in, and I'll take that in whatever shape it comes in. So I take theology a lot less seriously.
That being said - this is a beautiful way of boiling down some bad theology to really simple terms. And that helps people wake up to the reality of what they are saying: yes, many Christians believe they are in a relationship with a legalistic God who will torture you for contractual errors and not being super smart, clever, literate, or lucky enough to belong to the Right Denomination. And that belief bears fruit.
Laura, it’s like you took all the jumbled notes I have been thinking and ordered them beautifully in cognizable prose. Thank you. I don’t have an answer.
But I did just explain it to my senior class yesterday as “one of those examples of beliefs held in tension”...which basically means there are opposing truths that we stand in the middle of and slowly become pulled apart. I didn’t say that last part to them, though.
I hear you. You and I just engaged in a Twitter discussion with a person that, to be honest, left me rather frustrated (you didn’t, the other person did). (My Twitter handle is Joanna Cuza.) For three decades, I’ve had the question: Everyone believes they are right and can “prove” it by Scripture, but what happens when two people come to diametrically opposing conclusions, both using Scripture? They can’t both be right, so who is? It’s become increasingly harder for me to read the Bible because of fear of getting it wrong and going to hell for it. In the last few years, I’ve discovered that I probably have OCD which manifests as scrupulosity.
I became part of a Church of Christ in college, and while each congregation is autonomous, there are groups of congregations that are very quick to jump on other congregations that don’t toe what they believe to be the “Biblical” line. For example, one church in my area disfellowshipped us when we decided to add instruments to our worship service (Churches of Christ traditionally sing acapella.) Over the last three years, we’ve also lost a lot of people due to COVID, due to our response to the racial issues of 2020 (some of our staff members participated peacefully in some protests) and also because we chose to have women fully participate in leadership with the exception of the eldership. Before making that choice, our elders and a group of women studied the subject, and we as a church were invited to join any of several small groups that were going through the subject. It left me exhausted. I am so tired of trying to figure out what is “right”. I feel like I have to have a doctoral-level degree in Biblical studies and Biblical culture, as well as be fluent in Biblical Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic in order to understand what the Bible “really” means. (Throw in student loan debt - I unsuccessfully went back to school a few years ago - multiple physical/mental issues I have, and an adult child with autism, and yes, I am overwhelmed. I do receive counseling and that has been helpful.)
Great articles, thank you! Wondering how this may apply to the Catholic Church which also has a problem with the majors and minors you described in the first article? Or do you think different doctrinal systems have different etiologies for hypocrisy?
Starting out with this reply, I wanted to start out by saying that I think that the gospel's message is truncated in evangelical circles today. There is a little more to the story of Christ than just 'believe and you will be saved.' The current evangelical/reformed movement has many other issues, to say the least.
That being said, I have questions regarding some of the points made. It seems to me that you are critical of not only the 'salvation by faith' doctrine, but also a more salvation by faith + works kind of mentality too. Now I know you are going to talk more later (also in your husband's book), but it seems to me that you would disagree with more orthodox and catholic ideas of salvation as well? From my limited understanding of catholic doctrine, there is certainly an underlying idea of 'becoming saved' and 'doing good works to show it'.
As I've deconstructed over the past couple of years, I have come to have a better understanding of grace. Being raised evangelical, I have a knee jerk reaction: thinking that your solution or reading of Paul is more in line with theologies that say 'Everyone will be saved' regardless of their faith or regardless of what they've done (works or sins). I have a hard time with that theology given that in my studying of the bible, both new and old testament, I don't find a good argument for it. I support the criticisms you have for this 'salvation by faith' theology. I have experienced these anxieties myself and I have been hurt by the church. Although, my understanding of salvation now (although always changing and growing), doesn't really throw out this 'salvation by faith' theology. I would say it may add to it, but not throw it out.
You mentioned how it is hard to hinge upon the 'I trust God and let Him worry about the rest'. As this is a risky place to be in with uncertainties about God and who God is. I think that it is hard if you believe that God is constantly judging you, but I don't find it difficult, if I understand God's grace. My understanding of grace is that, once you have believed, you are a child of God. Simply put, I trust God with all of my uncertainties and doubt.
Apologies for tarty response. So from my understanding you believe in a kind of universalism? Would you say that every person goes to heaven regardless of whether they reject Jesus' saving?
Otherwise I think I have trouble with this interpretation. On one hand, I noticed that you commented that you don't know what Matthew was talking about (seemingly saying something different than Paul). In which case, I would ask, do you reject some parts of Scripture? How is Paul more trustworthy of a witness of Christ than Matthew (or any of the other gospel writers for that matter)?
Another subject is sharing of the gospel. Does your interpretation of Paul's gospel encourage us to 'make disciples of all nations' as from Matthew? I realize that Jesus doesn't just command the apostles to share the gospel, but also to 'teach and to baptize'.
There also tends to be a distinction between what the new testament authors describe as those who are 'saved' and those who live in the flesh (and are dead). What makes Christians distinct then? Even Paul differentiates those who seek fleshly sin and those who are made new by Christ. If we are all saved, what makes us different. It seems that the distinction is that one is saved and made new while the other is not.
Finally, what then are your thoughts on the Church's responsibility to morality? Paul often makes it clear that there is a certain way Christians should act and if there is moral compromise, it often leads to some form of discipline. At one point Paul says to cast the person who commits terrible sin out of community (hand them over to Satan so they may be saved). But it seems there is a moral responsibility to being in community with Christians.
What are your thoughts on NT Wright's new perspective on Paul?
Very quickly -- Matthew is not the apostle to the gentiles. Paul is. Matthew teaches the importance of keeping Torah perfectly, without which you can't enter the kingdom of heaven. I don't share his belief that I need to keep Torah, so I also don't feel compelled by some of his beliefs about the afterlife. Paul is the apostle to the gentiles so I listen to him.
I also am curious what you have to say about Romans 9-11 which seems to talk about those who will be thrown out (the branches) because of their unbelief
Then do you accept any of the other gospels as teaching to the gentiles? From my understanding, Luke seems to be written to a larger gentile audience. There are passages here that also seem to indicate obedience. (Luke 18:18-25) or even the parable of the ten minas in Luke 19. In Luke 13, Jesus also makes reference to 'the narrow door' with which only a few may enter. It seems to me a similar message is being spoken here than in Matthew. That being said, do you believe Jesus was teaching only to the Jews? Does this mean that the Jews were given a different gospel or a different way to salvation? Does that not mean that the Jews would be given a different gospel?
Paul also describes that there is now no differentiation between jew or gentile as we are all one in Christ. In fact, he rebuked Peter for still holding to some Jewish tradition for this very reason. .
Thank you for your response. I appreciate it! I am just trying to understand this view point more thoroughly
Great stuff, Dr. R! Looking forward to more. Maybe you’ll get to this eventually, but I’m wondering what you’d say to the objection that Calvinism bypasses these problems with JT because in that view of election, God saves those God chooses, regardless of their works or profession of faith.
Take one look at 19th century Scottish Presbyterianism and one will see that a whole host of other problems appear. The assurance of faith belongs to the chosen, but how does one know if they are chosen? The consequent anxiety drove people to try and condition God into being gracious by good works. Read John McCloud Campbell’s writings on his experience of pastoring in such a context. The “gospel” made people pretty dour.
On one hand I want to feel smug, because this is what I have been saying to Protestant friends; on the other hand I'm actually really excited to see the alternate interpretation you're hinting at.
resubmitting my looonngg comment with corrections:
LAURA!!!!! YEEEEEESSSS!! For so long I have been picking apart the tenets of Reformed ? theology to find the root cause of so much of the oppressive behavior I and my pastor husband are experiencing in the PCA. "Justification" indeed! Justification for chronic deafness resulting in mistreatment of so many. It's a weird, sort of masochistic twist on suffering I think, verifying the worthiness of Christ thus justifying one's own unworthiness and the wrath of the Father poured out on the Son. Sick, actually.
When I found out that there were other atonement theories in addition to penal substitutionary atonement (PSA), I was so thrilled and felt that at last I had found the flaw in the theological ointment (PSA). I posted a podcast episode on it on my Fb page. Holy hell broke loose on me. I was "turned in" by Session members of our PCA church to my husband, WHO IS THE PASTOR and he to this day is fighting being ousted. I had no idea what a theological landmine I was stepping on. There is something inherently appealing and validating to evangelical Christians' sense of masculinity about PSA. PSA, justification, the whole legal/judicial approach is so non-relational and (purportedly) objective, gives the illusion of control, certainty, power, and authority. It is telling that few female voices or perspectives are heard in these circles, and that female leadership is viewed as "Biblically" forbidden in them.
I'm not finished excavating this and understanding how it explains my own story of abusive "faith." Perhaps by doing so, others may recognize their own confusion and oppression and find Jesus at the bottom off it all. I'm catching glimpses of Him now and then, and learning to trust my ear in hearing His voice.
Lisa, I’m with you in seeing PSA as a driving force in so much of the oppressive/abusive power structures in the church. I’m so sorry for how you’ve been treated. I’m currently in a PCA church (fled here after abuse in an SBC/A29 church) and worried about what will happen if I openly question some of these doctrines. I hope you and your husband make it out of this safely -- however that looks -- and I hope your voice has prompted others to question and rethink harmful teaching.
Have you read Christus Victor?
Hi Joy, I've learned about Christus Victor as an atonement theory from Jennifer Bashaw through The Bible for Normal People (which I credit for saving my sanity and my faith!) but haven't read a book in it. I'm seeing one in Jennifer's recommended reading list by Gustaf Aulén. Is that the one to which you are referring? I have a copy of René Girard's "The Scapegoat" but haven't read it yet.
Yes, Aulen’s book is what I was referring to. It was very helpful to me! I discovered it through Fleming Rutledge’s book The Crucifixion, which first made me aware there even were other theories of atonement.
Fleming Rutledge was invited to speak at a PCA church in NY and the presbytery of
that church is being rebuked by the SJC for not bringing the church under discipline. The church didn't see that having her speak constituted preaching (preaching is permitted only for ordained individuals, and female ordination is forbidden in PCA's Book of Church Order (BOC)).
Makes me wonder how "preaching" is defined in the BOC. What constitutes preaching? Exegeting Scripture? What if a woman with a seminary degree presumes to exegete Scripture and speak it out loud? She's permitted to do this to women's groups in the PCA, but not to mixed groups, and in some churches not even to boys of a certain age. I don't know what happens if she is a wife and shares Scripture she has exegeted with her husband or if she's a mom and shares such with her own son.What if she writes it in a book and a man reads it?
Is preaching defined as speaking from the pulpit? Speaking w confidence and authority?
On second thought, what if a man actually learns something from a woman? Did she preach?
"If a tree falls in the forest ...?"
I want to say “that’s unbelievable!” ... but it’s not, unfortunately. I wish more men in the PCA would take seriously the questions you’re asking rather than using the BOC to baptize their male privilege.
I am so sad there are men who would rather not hear the gospel at all than hear it from a woman’s voice.
https://laurarbnsn.substack.com/p/the-good-news
Follow up
It's really nice to see someone putting a voice to all these problems that I carried around with me for decades. :)
Well, now you've left us with a cliffhanger - that's not fair! I need solutions! lol, really though this is great as usual and very thoughtful, thanks for sharing your thoughts with the internet, we all appreciate the work.
https://laurarbnsn.substack.com/p/the-good-news
This really resonated with me. I am so glad that you say you are going to address alternative ways of thinking about all this as I feel very much in the "muddle" of all my thinking. This compounded by the effects of childhood trauma (yes still/even now/ after so much therapeutic work that has and is making differences) has made me feel so "bad" at being a Christian and now I am not sure what to think.
https://laurarbnsn.substack.com/p/the-good-news
When my son, 35yo, was nine years old, he said, "Mom, if we're saved by faith from going to hell but faith is a gift from God, what if God chooses not to give a
person faith?"
https://laurarbnsn.substack.com/p/the-good-news
Smart kid.
So many good questions. I'm so intrigued!
(Also, top notch quoting. "That's legalism, Patrick!" Was wondering if I'd see a Voltron reference. 😉)
Big Heart Emoji!
I went through a long theobro journey trying to figure it all out so I could know for certain I wasn't going to hell. Hung out with some Calvinists in college. Etc. Also went on a journey with mental health that made me severely untrustworthy of my own mental faculties.
All to decide that, if my salvation is truly in my hands, I am truly effed up. Or as they say, damned. I must rely on someone or something else to get me through, not just the Test of Eternity, but the test of this life.
So I used to joke with my Calvinist buddies that I was more Calvinist than they were - for I believed that God could save me in spite of my atheism, agnosticism, in spite of my silly theological notions, in spite of my ignorance or confusion or inconsistence or depression. I believed that God could (and secretly enjoyed) saving idiots in spite of themselves.
At the moment, I'm theologically convinced that Jesus did not take heaven and hell or even the afterlife as seriously as modern evangelicals do, so I'm content to not take it that seriously either. I do need salvation from the crappy things I do to the people around me, and the relationships I'm in, and I'll take that in whatever shape it comes in. So I take theology a lot less seriously.
That being said - this is a beautiful way of boiling down some bad theology to really simple terms. And that helps people wake up to the reality of what they are saying: yes, many Christians believe they are in a relationship with a legalistic God who will torture you for contractual errors and not being super smart, clever, literate, or lucky enough to belong to the Right Denomination. And that belief bears fruit.
Thanks for writing it out so plainly!
Laura, it’s like you took all the jumbled notes I have been thinking and ordered them beautifully in cognizable prose. Thank you. I don’t have an answer.
But I did just explain it to my senior class yesterday as “one of those examples of beliefs held in tension”...which basically means there are opposing truths that we stand in the middle of and slowly become pulled apart. I didn’t say that last part to them, though.
https://laurarbnsn.substack.com/p/the-good-news
I hear you. You and I just engaged in a Twitter discussion with a person that, to be honest, left me rather frustrated (you didn’t, the other person did). (My Twitter handle is Joanna Cuza.) For three decades, I’ve had the question: Everyone believes they are right and can “prove” it by Scripture, but what happens when two people come to diametrically opposing conclusions, both using Scripture? They can’t both be right, so who is? It’s become increasingly harder for me to read the Bible because of fear of getting it wrong and going to hell for it. In the last few years, I’ve discovered that I probably have OCD which manifests as scrupulosity.
I became part of a Church of Christ in college, and while each congregation is autonomous, there are groups of congregations that are very quick to jump on other congregations that don’t toe what they believe to be the “Biblical” line. For example, one church in my area disfellowshipped us when we decided to add instruments to our worship service (Churches of Christ traditionally sing acapella.) Over the last three years, we’ve also lost a lot of people due to COVID, due to our response to the racial issues of 2020 (some of our staff members participated peacefully in some protests) and also because we chose to have women fully participate in leadership with the exception of the eldership. Before making that choice, our elders and a group of women studied the subject, and we as a church were invited to join any of several small groups that were going through the subject. It left me exhausted. I am so tired of trying to figure out what is “right”. I feel like I have to have a doctoral-level degree in Biblical studies and Biblical culture, as well as be fluent in Biblical Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic in order to understand what the Bible “really” means. (Throw in student loan debt - I unsuccessfully went back to school a few years ago - multiple physical/mental issues I have, and an adult child with autism, and yes, I am overwhelmed. I do receive counseling and that has been helpful.)
Great articles, thank you! Wondering how this may apply to the Catholic Church which also has a problem with the majors and minors you described in the first article? Or do you think different doctrinal systems have different etiologies for hypocrisy?
Starting out with this reply, I wanted to start out by saying that I think that the gospel's message is truncated in evangelical circles today. There is a little more to the story of Christ than just 'believe and you will be saved.' The current evangelical/reformed movement has many other issues, to say the least.
That being said, I have questions regarding some of the points made. It seems to me that you are critical of not only the 'salvation by faith' doctrine, but also a more salvation by faith + works kind of mentality too. Now I know you are going to talk more later (also in your husband's book), but it seems to me that you would disagree with more orthodox and catholic ideas of salvation as well? From my limited understanding of catholic doctrine, there is certainly an underlying idea of 'becoming saved' and 'doing good works to show it'.
As I've deconstructed over the past couple of years, I have come to have a better understanding of grace. Being raised evangelical, I have a knee jerk reaction: thinking that your solution or reading of Paul is more in line with theologies that say 'Everyone will be saved' regardless of their faith or regardless of what they've done (works or sins). I have a hard time with that theology given that in my studying of the bible, both new and old testament, I don't find a good argument for it. I support the criticisms you have for this 'salvation by faith' theology. I have experienced these anxieties myself and I have been hurt by the church. Although, my understanding of salvation now (although always changing and growing), doesn't really throw out this 'salvation by faith' theology. I would say it may add to it, but not throw it out.
You mentioned how it is hard to hinge upon the 'I trust God and let Him worry about the rest'. As this is a risky place to be in with uncertainties about God and who God is. I think that it is hard if you believe that God is constantly judging you, but I don't find it difficult, if I understand God's grace. My understanding of grace is that, once you have believed, you are a child of God. Simply put, I trust God with all of my uncertainties and doubt.
https://laurarbnsn.substack.com/p/the-good-news
Curious to hear what you think about that
Apologies for tarty response. So from my understanding you believe in a kind of universalism? Would you say that every person goes to heaven regardless of whether they reject Jesus' saving?
Otherwise I think I have trouble with this interpretation. On one hand, I noticed that you commented that you don't know what Matthew was talking about (seemingly saying something different than Paul). In which case, I would ask, do you reject some parts of Scripture? How is Paul more trustworthy of a witness of Christ than Matthew (or any of the other gospel writers for that matter)?
Another subject is sharing of the gospel. Does your interpretation of Paul's gospel encourage us to 'make disciples of all nations' as from Matthew? I realize that Jesus doesn't just command the apostles to share the gospel, but also to 'teach and to baptize'.
There also tends to be a distinction between what the new testament authors describe as those who are 'saved' and those who live in the flesh (and are dead). What makes Christians distinct then? Even Paul differentiates those who seek fleshly sin and those who are made new by Christ. If we are all saved, what makes us different. It seems that the distinction is that one is saved and made new while the other is not.
Finally, what then are your thoughts on the Church's responsibility to morality? Paul often makes it clear that there is a certain way Christians should act and if there is moral compromise, it often leads to some form of discipline. At one point Paul says to cast the person who commits terrible sin out of community (hand them over to Satan so they may be saved). But it seems there is a moral responsibility to being in community with Christians.
What are your thoughts on NT Wright's new perspective on Paul?
Very quickly -- Matthew is not the apostle to the gentiles. Paul is. Matthew teaches the importance of keeping Torah perfectly, without which you can't enter the kingdom of heaven. I don't share his belief that I need to keep Torah, so I also don't feel compelled by some of his beliefs about the afterlife. Paul is the apostle to the gentiles so I listen to him.
I also am curious what you have to say about Romans 9-11 which seems to talk about those who will be thrown out (the branches) because of their unbelief
Then do you accept any of the other gospels as teaching to the gentiles? From my understanding, Luke seems to be written to a larger gentile audience. There are passages here that also seem to indicate obedience. (Luke 18:18-25) or even the parable of the ten minas in Luke 19. In Luke 13, Jesus also makes reference to 'the narrow door' with which only a few may enter. It seems to me a similar message is being spoken here than in Matthew. That being said, do you believe Jesus was teaching only to the Jews? Does this mean that the Jews were given a different gospel or a different way to salvation? Does that not mean that the Jews would be given a different gospel?
Paul also describes that there is now no differentiation between jew or gentile as we are all one in Christ. In fact, he rebuked Peter for still holding to some Jewish tradition for this very reason. .
Thank you for your response. I appreciate it! I am just trying to understand this view point more thoroughly
Great stuff, Dr. R! Looking forward to more. Maybe you’ll get to this eventually, but I’m wondering what you’d say to the objection that Calvinism bypasses these problems with JT because in that view of election, God saves those God chooses, regardless of their works or profession of faith.
Take one look at 19th century Scottish Presbyterianism and one will see that a whole host of other problems appear. The assurance of faith belongs to the chosen, but how does one know if they are chosen? The consequent anxiety drove people to try and condition God into being gracious by good works. Read John McCloud Campbell’s writings on his experience of pastoring in such a context. The “gospel” made people pretty dour.
recently listened to a lecture series by James Torrance out of Regent at UBC in which he referred to Campbell
Where can I find these lectures if you don't mind me asking?
It was Torrance who got me interested in Campbell. Torrance was a great man
On one hand I want to feel smug, because this is what I have been saying to Protestant friends; on the other hand I'm actually really excited to see the alternate interpretation you're hinting at.
I am looking forward to your promised continuation of this subject!
https://laurarbnsn.substack.com/p/the-good-news
https://laurarbnsn.substack.com/p/the-good-news