Thesis (M. Th.)--Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1967. / Includes bibliographical refereces (leaves 191-202).

No description available.

Thesis (Ph. L.)--Catholic University of America, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 61-62).

Thesis (Th. M.)--Dallas Theological Seminary, 1986. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves [65]-69).

Thesis (Ph. L.)--Catholic University of America, 2003. / Including bibliographical references (leaves 61-62).

Thesis (Th. M.)--Dallas Theological Seminary, 1986. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves [65]-69).

Thesis (Th. M.)--Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton, MA, 2005. / Abstract and vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 99-102).

Thesis (Th. M.)--Dallas Theological Seminary, 1986. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves [65]-69).

This thesis is a study on the theology of an Anglican bishop, John Davenant (1572-1641), in the context of the early modern era. In particular it focuses on his understanding of the extent and intent of the atoning death of Christ. Davenant played an important role in the development of early orthodox Reformed theology, especially on this controversial doctrine. Some scholars have claimed that Davenant's position was a forerunner of Amyraldianism in the seventeenth century. Others have argued that his view was different from Amyraldianism. However, no scholar has substantiated the latter argument based on Davenant's extensive writings as to how far Davenant's view on the extent of the atonement was distinct from the position of John Cameron, the Father of Amyraldianism. The contention of this thesis is that Davenant's views of predestination, the atonement and free-will were the main factors that affected his twofoldintention view, and they differed from the positions of John Cameron. The exposition of those doctrines by John Davenant both in his various writings and in his testimony at the Synod of Dort serve as the object of the investigation. Cameron's writings are also selectively investigated and his views on those doctrines are compared with Davenant's positions. The Canons of Dort are analysed in order to examine whether Davenant's doctrinal position is situated within the confessional orthodoxy in the early seventeenth century. Davenant's position on the universal aspect of the atonement was based on the universal proclamation of the Gospel. Davenant stressed the immutability of God's will for the elect. Cameron's view on the universal aspect of the atonement depended on the divine will for the salvation of every individual which could be frustrated due to human free choice. Since the decree of sending Christ preceded the decree of election according to Cameron's view on the order of the divine decrees, Cameron's view was different from Davenant's. Cameron held to a distinction between moral and physical ability and intellectual persuasion of the Holy Spirit upon the human mind. These things were not shared by Davenant. The conclusion arrived at is that Davenant's twofold-intention view was distinct from Cameron's hypothetical universalism. Thus this study substantiates the claim that Davenant was not a forerunner of Amyraldianism and his view was situated within the boundary of confessional orthodoxy codified in the Canons of Dort.

For the greater part of the history of the Christian Church the doctrines of baptism and predestination have been uneasy bed-fellows. At times, the former has gained the predominance and the latter has been relegated to the region of philosophical prolegomena to faith, having no immediate connection with the Christian life. In other periods, the doctrine of predestination has gained the ascendency and the importance of baptism has been minimized. Nevertheless, both these aspects of the Christian faith are strikingly present in the New Testament, and in no way do we find there premonitions of the tensions between them in the later history of the Church. Is this because of the unsystematic nature of the New Testament faith which evaded these difficulties through its own lack of order, or is there a deeper reason for the primitive harmony between these two aspects of Christian theology? [contined in text ...]