You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
CHRIST 'FOR US' AND 'IN US': A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE OBJECTIVE/SUBJECTIVE THEOLOGICAL TERM OF THE DOCTRINE OF JUST
Religion and Theology
Pages 16 (4016 words)
A Comparison of the Justification Theories of J. Kenneth Grider and John Murray Chapter I: Introduction The theological views on justification1 and atonement2 comprise a major point of contention among subsequent scholars of the Reformation.3. The term “justification” means “to be found just or righteous before God;” it is a divine verdict of acquitting one from the charge of having sinned, and declaring that person “not guilty – fully righteous” before all, a full vindication.
The aim of the paper is to demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses of the theological views of Grider (a Wesleyan scholar) and Murray (a Calvinist scholar) on the subject of justification/atonement. The objective of the research is to deepen our understanding of the implications of both theories and to formulate a judgment about which of them would be more consistent with our personal interpretation of the Scriptural teachings. Comparisons shall be made to determine principles commonly held by the two schools of thought, as well as divergences in their teachings and the reasons thereof. Necessarily, the scriptural bases for the teachings shall be examined, as well as where the interpretations of these readings differ. There is a slight limitation to this study. Justification and atonement theories have developed through the years, from the Augustinian teachings to Martin Luther and subsequently to Wesley and Calvin. ...
Not exactly what you need?