Tag Archives: Substitutionary atonement

“FOR FORGIVENESS OF SINS”

Jack Cottrell Posted on by

“FOR FORGIVENESS OF SINS” A COMMUNION MEDITATION By Jack Cottrell “While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body.’ And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins’” (Matthew 26:26-28). This is Matthew’s inspired record of some things Jesus said as He was establishing the church practice called communion, … Continue reading →

THE LORD’S SUPPER AS A COVENANT MEAL

Jack Cottrell Posted on by

THE LORD’S SUPPER AS A COVENANT MEAL A COMMUNION MEDITATION By Jack Cottrell Matthew 26:27-28 – “And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.’” Luke 22:20 – “And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.” In a recent communion meditation I pointed out how the word “is,” … Continue reading →

MUST ONE BELIEVE JESUS IS GOD IN ORDER TO BE SAVED?

Jack Cottrell Posted on by

QUESTION: Does true saving faith in Jesus Christ necessarily include believing that he is God in the flesh? Must one believe that Jesus is God in order to be saved? Can one deny his deity and still be saved? ANSWER: True saving faith is indeed faith in Jesus Christ. When the Philippian jailer asked of Paul and Silas, “’Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved’” (Acts 16:30-31, NASB). Jesus himself had already made this clear: “’Whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life…. He … Continue reading →

THE NEW PERSPECTIVE ON PAUL: WRIGHT IS WRONG

Jack Cottrell Posted on by

THE NEW PERSPECTIVE ON PAUL: WRIGHT IS WRONG JACK COTTRELL — 2ND EDITION – JUNE 2016 I begin with this caveat: I am not an expert on this subject. I am pursuing it because it is one of the most significant CHALLENGES to traditional theology, and because it is being taught by one of the most respected and influential Biblical scholars of our day: Nicholas Thomas (N.T., Tom) Wright, who is sometimes credited with coining the expression,“New Perspective on Paul” [NPP] (Justification, 28). [Most quotes here are from Wright’s Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (IVP 2009). Some are from … Continue reading →

Is Substitutionary Atonement a Calvinist Doctrine?

Jack Cottrell Posted on by

Is Substitutionary Atonement a Calvinist Doctrine? by Jack Cottrell (Notes) on Monday, August 1, 2011 at 11:50am QUESTION: There are some who say that Jesus was in no way a substitute for our sins because this is Calvinism. I have your book, God the Redeemer, and have read your chapter dealing with the atonement. I believe that Jesus in some way “took our place” as in Gal. 3:13 (substitution does not have to be used), but I am not a Calvinist and would fight Calvinism rigorously. Can you offer any more help especially in locating materials that would support Jesus … Continue reading →

Are we justified by Christ’s LIFE or by his DEATH–or both?

Jack Cottrell Posted on by

Are we justified by Christ’s LIFE or by his DEATH–or both? by Jack Cottrell (Notes) on Thursday, September 17, 2009 at 10:27am HERE IS ANOTHER QUESTION I received recently: “I have been following a discussion on a Calvinist blog re: the ‘active obedience’ view of the atonement. I read your section in ‘The Faith Once for All’ [p. 323], wherein you call this a ‘serious error.’ I’d be interested to know why this is such a serious error, i.e. what it in fact might lead to. Thanks for any help.” HERE IS MY REPLY: I usually speak of Christ’s “active … Continue reading →

More on Original Sin

Jack Cottrell Posted on by

More on Original Sin by Jack Cottrell (Notes) on Saturday, September 5, 2009 at 9:13am This is a follow-up discussion growing out of my earlier note on “Original Sin and the Incarnation.” My friend Tom Lawson makes some interesting observations, and I give a response. (OS=original sin) TOM LAWSON: In discussing OS, I come back to the old debate if post-fall humanity was born with a nature damaged in any degree that resulted in a tendency toward sin and whether this was universally reversed at the atonement? Pelagius, if accurately represented in the extant (and biased) material would seem to … Continue reading →