It is striking that, to my knowledge, none of his confreres in either the “Reformed” Catholic or Federal revisionist camp has deemed the doctrine of penal substitution sufficiently important to mount a pubic defense…. Remember that the next time you’re tempted to look to Tim Enloe or James Jordan or Doug Wilson or Peter Leithart or Andrew Sandlin for spiritual guidance.
What? Can anyone sit under Doug Wilson’s or Peter Leithart’s preaching not call this stuff the pure lie that it is? I’ve been reading Jim Jordan’s exposition of OT and NT for years. This is complete rubbish from beginning to end. Is there any attempt to buttress this railing accusaton against Enloe and Sandlin?
Hey, as for me, I’ve been trumpeting N. T. Wright’s defense of “propitiation” in Romans 3 and of sacrificial language in Romans 8.1-3 for years.
Wikipedia is a firm foundation of truth when compared to the “Reformed” blogosphere.
Unbelievable.
Where did that come from?
Well, perhaps Mark was being polite, but, ahem, if you put some relevant words from that quote into Google…
Feeling lucky? 😉
Don’t you just love ‘real clear’ theology! Its like the ‘Alpha & Omega’ of the blogging world. Maybe we should start a ‘trinity foundation’ so that we can accept donations on their behalf.
Yeah, I like it because it’s real clear. And it’s real good. It’s way clearer and way gooder than those other real clear blogs.
Maybe they should start a blog called “Real Correct Grammar.”
Mark, you might want to edit your quotation a bit. I’m sure that the original author meant “public defense,” not “pubic defense.” 😉
Yeah, that gives “penal substitution” a whole new meaning! 🙂