LIBERTY THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
SUBMITTED TO DOCTOR ABOGUNRIN
IN PARTIAL FULLFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COURSE
LYNDA L. DURRETT
October 20, 2011
In comparison of Town’s treatment of the text and the article I found Town’s treatment the more favorable of the two. Atonement or the reconciliation between God and humans brought about by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus is addressed by Town’s, through careful explanation of requirements for the atonement and the various views of these requirements.
Town’s provides the reader tangible and practical information on atonement. He provides an overview of the Calvinistic View or the Anselmian theory in the direction of penal substitution. Town’s also presents the Armenian view and demonstrates the strengths and weaknesses of both contrasting each with scripture.
In the textbook Town’s explains a limited view of atonement that Calvinist possess, explaining it does not stand with the Bible as it limits reconciliation with God. This view of atonement claims that Christ died for only the elected ones and therefore there is only redemption for a select chosen group of individuals.
In contrast the article provides the reader with several extremely detailed definitions of atonement and the various theories. The article details the requirements of man for atonement as does Town’s. The article presents the reader with the viewpoint of
“Particular redemption” as does Town’s, with arguments presented in favor of found in the article and Town’s showing evidence against “particular redemption”.
The article provides an overview of the three principal theories. The first of these theories is the Anselmian or sacrificial, where the Christ’s sacrifice is the atonement for humanity. In this theory there are two forms known as the governmental and the satisfaction. The governmental contends that the work of Christ met the demands of the law and...