The superabundance of God’s blessings to Christ, destined for us, rests on the rationale of Jesus’ worthiness to receive God’s premial justice without measure, on account of his faithful obedience untainted by sin.

A few theologians (and philosophers) in recent years are finally warming up to the illuminating significance of “gift,” “excess,” “superfluity,” “abundance,” etc., in their connection to the fruit of Christ’s achievement and the operation of the Holy Spirit. But no one so far appears to have connected it unequivocally to the super-compensatory nature of God’s premial justice toward the worthiness of Christ’s faithful obedience during his earthly career. Yet without this ultimate rationale, their asseverations seem to lack sufficient, or at least sufficiently persuasive, grounds. They seem to float or hang in suspension, insufficiently integrated with other vital components of God’s premial project in that resounding News from 30 A.D. [7/8/11]

How could the Lord Jesus Christ possibly have “paid” our “debt” of sin to God since God “owns” everything anyway? Put this way, of course (as countless voices have vainly protested, evidently, and for multiplied generations!), the question itself sounds silly. Yet if God lacks for absolutely nothing good but is instead the source and spring of all that is created, then what “payment” does He need either from us directly or from a substitute? We shouldn’t be surprised, then, that Scripture never represents God as requiring or even being pleased with any postulated “payment” from anybody for sins, but instead as FORGIVING, PARDONING, or RELEASING them from their wrongs, by His graciousness (for His precious Son’s worthy sake) expressed toward anyone who sincerely repents and trusts Him for it. Duh (respectfully)! [7/10/11]

Without the velcro of a correct systematic understanding of the atonement, many a true exegetical insight has gotten detached and then drifted off untethered into the ether of outer space, sadly forgotten, never properly or fairly recaptured and repatriated. Only the correct explanation will provide the adhesive that can bond the valid particulars of scattered exegetical findings into a coherent and integral whole, where each distinct term and passage is given its due. The premial focus of God’s justice in relation to atonement renders illuminating justice also to the diverse contexts that treat the topic. But don’t take my word for it! [7/11/11] (But even so, please don’t neglect to consider my “Theses for the Reconstruction of Ancient Historic Christian Atonement Doctrine” at the top of this blog site. [11/22/24])

The Lord Jesus Christ pinned to a cross was God’s sacrifice, His offering, His offer of forgiveness, not only to the self-righteous nation of Israel, not only to the oppressive Romans, but to every nation without discrimination. For this grim spectacle constituted His unmistakable demonstration of non-retaliation! And as if that were not enough, on the third day hence, instead of carrying out the well-deserved avenging of His Son’s precious blood at the guilty hands of his slayers, God, his father, set His own stamp of hearty approval on that gracious behavior by RAISING JESUS BACK TO LIFE, AWARDING HIM A VAST OVERFLOW OF SURPLUS GLORY, POWER, AUTHORITY, WEALTH, AND MORE! This “graciousness in exchange for graciousness” (John 1:16) sets the pace for a responsive human emulation during the remainder of this age…yes, and far, far beyond! [7/11/11]

MUSLIMS HAVE US DEAD TO RIGHTS!

Intelligent, educated Muslims ask penetrating questions about the “atonement” that orthodox Evangelicals are hard pressed to answer to their satisfaction. “Why did Jesus ‘have to’ die?” is a stumper. By now, we all can parrot the ‘right’ response as if from a catechism: because our sins “had to” be “paid for” in order to “satisfy God’s justice” and “appease His wrath“—or perhaps “restore His honor,” as in the older, more Anselmian, iteration—understood as “having to” suffer the punishment/penalty for our sins as a “substitute” because God “has to” punish every particle of sin one way or another, whether directly or vicariously. Rubbish (can’t you smell it?). This dubious solution, however, is full-on illusory, not to say morally offensive to anyone’s best sense of justice and sound conscience. It is only perpetuated on the ruse that it’s because God “loves” us that He was willing to be satisfied with a substitute instead of punishing wrongdoers directly. But where does rewarding or premial justice show up in all this chatter? Where is the logic of dozens of Psalms reflected in such hyper-vengeful sentiments? Embarrassingly, nowhere at all. [7/15/11]

Theological Prolegomena / Fundamental Theology

BERCOT, David W. (1950-)

***__________.  Will the Theologians Please Sit Down.  Amberson, PA: Scroll Publishing Co., 2009.  {200p.}

CLOUSER, Roy (1937-)

***__________.  The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay on the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories.  Notre Dame, IN/London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1991.  {xii, 330p.}

COLERIDGE, Samuel Taylor (1772-1834)

__________.  Aids to Reflection.  With the author’s last corrections.  Edited by Henry Nelson Coleridge, to which is prefixed a preliminary essay, by John M’Vickar.  New York: W. Gowans, 1863.  {xlviii, 324p.}

DE MOOR, Johannes Cornelis (1935-)

*__________.  Towards a Biblically Theo-logical Method: A structural analysis and a further elaboration of dr. G. C. Berkouwer’s hermeneutic-dogmatic method.  Published Th.D. dissertation for the Free University of Amsterdam.  Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1980.  {vii, 402p.}  [Touches critically on Wiersinga’s controversial dissertation on Atonement, esp. pp. 95, 142, 311, 319, 347-51.  {9p.}]

DERRIDA, Jacques (1930-2004) and Jean-Luc MARION (1946-)

*__________.  “On the Gift: A Discussion between Jacques Derrida and Jean-Luc Marion,  Moderated by Richard Kearna.”  In God, the Gift, and Postmodernism.  Edited by John D Caputo and Michael J. Scanlon.  Bloomington:  Indiana University Press, 1999.  {}

DOOYEWEERD, Herman (1894-1977)

**__________.  “The Calvinist Revival and the Rise of the Idea of an Intrinsically Reformational Philosophy,” Chapter I in Reformation and Scholasticism in Philosophy.  Volume II, The Philosophy of the Cosmonomic Idea and the Scholastic Tradition in Christian Thought, pp. 1-27.  Translated by Magnus Verbrugge.  Edited by Lyn Boliek, Ralph Vunderink, and Harry Van Dyke.  General editor, D. F. M. Strauss.  The Collected Works of Herman Dooyeweerd, Series A, Volume 5/2; the Dooyeweerd Centre for Christian Philosophy, Redeemer University College, Ancaster, Ontario.  Grand Rapids, MI: Paideia Press, www.reformationalpublishingproject.com, 2013.  {27p.}  (Parts of Volume II appeared in the Dutch journal Philosophia Reformata in 1943, 1944, 1945, 1946, and 1952.)

**__________.  “Preliminary Questions,” Chapter II in ibid., pp. 28-93.  {66p.}

***__________.  “The Dangers of the Intellectual Disarmament of Christianity in Science,” in Christian Philosophy and the Meaning of History, pp. 67-104.  The Collected Works of Herman Dooyeweerd, Series B, Volume 1.  Lewiston, NY/Queenston, ON/Lampeter, Wales: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1996.  {38p.}

**__________.  “Introduction: Initial Survey of the Religious Ground-Motives and the Conflict They Produce between the Reformational and Scholastic Spirits in Philosophy,” in Reformation and Scholasticism in Philosophy.  Volume I, The Greek Prelude, pp. 1-39.  Translated by Ray Togtmann.  Initial editor, Robert D. Knudsen; final editor, Daniël Strauss.  Editing of all Greek quotations, Al Wolters.  The Collected Works of Herman Dooyeweerd, Series A, Volume 5; the Dooyeweerd Centre for Christian Philosophy, Redeemer University College, Ancaster, Ontario.  Grand Rapids, MI: Paideia Press, 2012.  {xxv, 39p.}  (Original: Reformatie en Scholastiek in de Wijsbegeerte.  Franeker, Nederland: T. Wever, 1949.)

**__________.  “Philosophy and Theology—I, II, III,” in In the Twilight of Western Thought: Studies in the Pretended Autonomy of Philosophical Thought, pp. 113-172.  Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1960.  {60p.}  (Reprinted, The Craig Press, Nutley, NJ, 1965.)

**__________.  “Philosophy and Theology,” Part Three (chaps. 5-7) in In the Twilight of Western Thought: Studies in the Pretended Autonomy of Philosophical Thought, pp. 79-116.  Edited by James K.A. Smith.  The Collected Works of Herman Dooyeweerd, Series B, Volume 4.  Lewiston, NY/Queenston, ON/Lampeter, Wales: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1999.  {38p.}

**__________.  “The Position of the Aspect of Faith in the Opening-Process” and “Continued: The Opening of the Function of Faith in the Apostatical Direction,” in A New Critique of Theoretical Thought, Volume II, pp. 298-319, 319-30.  Amsterdam: Uitgeverij H. J. Paris / Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1955.  {22, 12p.}

**__________.  “Chapter IV—The Structural Horizon of Human Experience and of Created ‘Earthly Reality’ ”: “§ 2—The Structure of the Horizon of Human Experience and the Levels of the A Priori” and “§ 3—The Perspective Structure of Truth,” in ibid., pp. 552-65, 565-82.  {14, 18p.}

GREIDANUS, Sidney (1935-)

***__________.  Sola Scriptura: Problems and Principles in Preaching Historical Texts.  [Published Th.D. dissertation for the Free University of Amsterdam.]  Toronto: Wedge Publishing Foundation, 1970.  {viii, 251p.}

HELLEMAN, Wendy E. (1945-)

**__________, editor.  Christianity and the Classics: The Acceptance of a Heritage.  Christian Studies Today.  Lanham, MD/New York/London: University Press of America, 1990.  {219p.}

**__________.  Hellenization Revisited: Shaping a Christian Response within the Greco-Roman World.  Christian Studies Today.  Lanham, MD/New York/London: University Press of America, 1994.  {[xxi], 544p.}

MARION, Jean-Luc (1946-)

*__________.  Being Given: Toward a Phenomenology of Givenness.  Translated by Jeffrey L. Kosky.  Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002.  {}

*__________.  Givenness and Revelation.  Translated by Stephen E. Lewis.  Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.  {}

*__________.  In Excess: Studies of Saturated Phenomena.  Translated by Robyn Horner and Vincent Betraud.  New York: Fordham University Press, 2002.  {}

MARION, Jean-Luc (1946-) and Jacques DERRIDA (1930-2004)

*__________.  “On the Gift: A Discussion between Jacques Derrida and Jean-Luc Marion.”  Moderated by Richard Kearna.  In God, the Gift, and Postmodernism.  Edited by John D Caputo and Michael J. Scanlon.  Bloomington:  Indiana University Press, 1999.  {}

MARSDEN, George (1939-)

__________.  The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship.  New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.  {}

MAUSS, Marcel (1872-1950).  [Significant cross-cultural anthropological explorations into gift-giving.  Relied on by some postmodern thinkers.]

OUWENEEL, Willem J. (1944-)

****__________.  Christian Doctrine: Old Truths in New Perspective.  Volume One: The External Prolegomena.  Amsterdam: Buijten & Schipperheijn, 1993.  {178p.}

__________.  “Philosophy and Theology,” chap. 9 in Wisdom for Thinkers: An Introduction to Christian Philosophy, pp. 155-171.  Jordan Station, ON: Paideia Press, 2014.  {17p.}

__________.  What Then Is Theology?: An Introduction to Christian Theology.  Jordan Station, ON: Paideia Press, 2014.  {xiv, 242p.}

ROOT, Michael (-)

**__________.  “The Narrative Structure of Soteriology.”  In Why Narrative?: Readings in Narrative Theology, pp. 263-78.  Edited by Stanley Hauerwas and L. Gregory Jones.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.  {16p.}

SPYKMAN, Gordon J[ohn]. (1926-93)

***__________.  “Foundations,” Part One in Reformational Theology: A New Paradigm for Doing Dogmatics, pp. 3-136.  Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992.  {134p.}

SUBILIA, Vittorio (1911-88)

**__________.  “The intellectual framework” in The Problem of Catholicism, pp. 85-95.  Translated from the Italian by Reginald Kissack.  The Library of History and Doctrine.  London: SCM Press, 1964.  {11p.}  (Il Problema del Cattolicesimo.  Turin: Libreria Editrice Claudiana, 1962.)

**__________.  “The dogmatic reformation,” in ibid., pp. 95-99.  {5p.}