10 Things You Should Know about the Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement

What is known as the satisfaction theory of the atonement is most closely associated with the name of St. Anselm. Here are ten things to know about how he conceived of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

(1) First, it may help to know a little about the man himself. Anselm was born in 1033 at Aosta in Piedmont (northern Italy) two years before William the Conqueror became Duke of Normandy. He died in 1109. He was a studious youth, amiable, and often displayed a profound tenderness for animals. In despair over his relationship with his father he left home at the age of 23 and traveled north to Bec in Normandy. After the death of his father (who finally converted), Anselm became a monk (1060).

In 1063 he succeeded Lanfranc as prior of the abbey and held the post until 1078, at which time he became abbot, where he served until 1093. He then, somewhat reluctantly, accepted the position of Archbishop of Canterbury and went to Britain. These were troubled years for Anselm, eight of which (1097-1100, 1103-1106) were spent in exile. In 1494 he was canonized by Alexander VI.


Read more: http://christmycovenant.com/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-satisfaction-theory-of-the-atonement/


10 Questions I Wonder If Churches Ever Ask . . .

~ Chuck Lawless

I’m just thinking aloud here today as I wonder if many churches in North America ever ask these questions:

  1. Why have we not done anything about years of decline? I don’t understand why nobody speaks up about this problem. Too many churches sleep themselves into death.
  2. Are we reaching any non-believers? Even growing churches—including young church plants—often fail to ask this question. Transfer growth, though, will never reach the world.
  3. If we weren’t here, would our community miss our church? The only way to answer this question is to ask the community if they even know you exist. You might be surprised by their answer.

The rest is at: http://chucklawless.com/2018/02/10-questions-i-wonder-if-churches-ever-ask/

What Really Is Faith and What Does It Mean?


The Exclusivity of Christianity

The Exclusivity of Christianity

What happens to a person who dies without hearing the gospel? Do they go to Heaven? Do they go to Hell? That question is being discussed in our Sunday School classes, pulpits and in the local coffee shop more often than we may realize. Does the Bible teach the exclusivity of Christianity? Is Jesus the only way to be reconciled to God? The troubling reality is evident by the wide variety of answers that are given to these questions. With an often watered down gospel message preached on the television and radio, coupled with a soft message of God’s judgment, the result is staggering and may be the cause for so much controversy over this old debate. In order to fully address this question, it is important that we examine several key issues surrounding this question.

What Does the Bible Teach About Sin?

Read more: https://churchleaders.com/outreach-missions/outreach-missions-articles/314304-the-exclusivity-of-christianity-josh-buice.html

The God of covenantal relationship


Why Jen Hatmaker Apparently Thinks I’m Going to Hell

In my previous post, I explained why Jen Hatmaker does not understand contextualization. This was necessary because she and her interviewers use language that might mislead people about what is genuinely biblical contextualization. Fundamentally, her arguments are flawed because of an increasingly popular but superficial way of interpreting Scripture.

Credit: Flickr/CollegeDegrees360

This post examines the specific passage she seems to use in order to justify her views on LGBTQ and same-sex marriage. I will first remind you of her comments explaining the turning point in her thinking. She said,

Basically, Jesus is like, “Ok, well, some things are hard to understand, some things are confusing, people are confusing; there’s conflict. When you are not sure, when there’s something, be it a relationship or a person or a doctrine, whatever, that feels ambiguous or it feels contentious or there’s tension around its interpretation, look to the fruit. Like the fruit is going to tell you the truth. Because ultimately, however you slice it, a good tree is going to bear good fruit and a bad tree is going to bear bad fruit. And there you go. There’s a clue….”

In her interview, she effectively defines “fruit” as one’s emotional response to another’s actions and opinions. At the very least, her usage is equivalent to consequence. For the moment, let’s set aside the problematic way she defines “fruit.”

What text does she use to support her perspective?

Finish at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jacksonwu/2018/02/09/why-hatmaker-thinks-hell/

Why I’m stopping students doing walk-up evangelism