Francis Turretin on differences among Reformed divines on the absolute or hypothetical necessity of the atonement

Status
Not open for further replies.

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
On the other hand, the orthodox maintain that this justice is an essential property of God and not merely the effect of his free will. Nevertheless it must be confessed that there is among them some diversity of opinion about the exercise of this justice – some holding it to be necessary, others that it is free and indifferent (viz., such that God can abstain from it if he will).

Hence they think diversely concerning the necessity of the satisfaction. Some maintain that it is only hypothetical (viz., from the hypothesis of the divine will and decree) so that God could not remit sins without a satisfaction; not that his justice would demand this absolutely and necessarily, but because he so decreed (which opinion [William] Twisse follows walking in the footsteps of some of our teachers who spoke with more freedom before Socinus arose).

But others make it absolute, not only depending on the decree, but also taking its rise from the divine justice. But although both agree as to the hinge of the question against the Socinians (who deny the necessity of a satisfaction), still it is certain that the latter opinion (now the most commonly held) is far more efficacious to the strangling of that most pestilent heresy and more in accordance with the nature of God and the words of Scripture.

For the reference, see Francis Turretin on differences among Reformed divines on the absolute or hypothetical necessity of the atonement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top