[εις επαινον δοξης αυτου] New comment on "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ".
Matthew LaPine has left a new comment on your post ""The Death of Death in the Death of Christ"":
This is where the limited atonement view loses me. So the jailer comes to Paul and asks, "what must I do to be saved?" I'm with you if you want to point out that Paul didn't say "say a prayer" or "repent." But if what Packer is saying is true, the proper response seems to be "well, I don't know that anything is required of you." Don't get me wrong, I'm very sympathetic to the reformed position, but I don't understand at all why they start talking about salvation as if faith is not required. Are people converted before they believe? And if so, are we talking about days before? Years before? Why can't the sovereignty of God work hand in hand with man's response? The trick here in their minds is chronology I think. It's difficult for them to realize that just because God's blood did accomplish something for someone not yet born doesn't mean that what the Bible says about faith is not at some point in time going to need to be true of them. If God exists atemporally as most reformed suggest why are the order of the decrees so important? People talk about logical order, but logical order is chronological order however we cut it. I can't conceive of a thought progress without a time progress, yet all of God's thought processes can be thought of as contemporaneous. Why then, is the order of the decrees so vastly important. I love everything the Reformed have to say about salvation except this because exegetically it does not jive with Scripture. If I'm off here, let me know the holes in my thought.
Posted by Matthew LaPine to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 7:21 AM
This is where the limited atonement view loses me. So the jailer comes to Paul and asks, "what must I do to be saved?" I'm with you if you want to point out that Paul didn't say "say a prayer" or "repent." But if what Packer is saying is true, the proper response seems to be "well, I don't know that anything is required of you." Don't get me wrong, I'm very sympathetic to the reformed position, but I don't understand at all why they start talking about salvation as if faith is not required. Are people converted before they believe? And if so, are we talking about days before? Years before? Why can't the sovereignty of God work hand in hand with man's response? The trick here in their minds is chronology I think. It's difficult for them to realize that just because God's blood did accomplish something for someone not yet born doesn't mean that what the Bible says about faith is not at some point in time going to need to be true of them. If God exists atemporally as most reformed suggest why are the order of the decrees so important? People talk about logical order, but logical order is chronological order however we cut it. I can't conceive of a thought progress without a time progress, yet all of God's thought processes can be thought of as contemporaneous. Why then, is the order of the decrees so vastly important. I love everything the Reformed have to say about salvation except this because exegetically it does not jive with Scripture. If I'm off here, let me know the holes in my thought.
Posted by Matthew LaPine to εις επαινον δοξης αυτου at 7:21 AM
posted by Matthew LaPine at
7:21 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home