Status Updates From The Cross and Salvation: Th...

Calling's always been an odd bit in the ordo salutis to me. Interesting to see how diff groups conceive of it.

Not my fav chapter. Strong on atonement theories/dimensions. Weaker on extent/intention question and applications.

Demarest undermines his argument for a universal atonement by marshalling texts that dont not necessarily prove his case. That Christ died for "all" in some sense is clear (Heb 2:9, 2 Cor 5:14-15). That he propitated for all is not proven. Ultimately, his answer leaves numerous unanswered questions.

"We choose to ask the question, For whom did Christ intend to provide atonement through his suffering and death? Accordingly, we will divide the question in two parts. We inquire, first, into the provision Christ made via his death on the cross. And we explore, second, the application of the benefits gained by Calvary to sinners."

On its face, this seems like good framing for the extent question.

"God acted to save the sinful race in the way he did precisely because of who he is."

Demarest does well to peotect God's freedom in decreeing the best method of salvation as governed by His own nature. But he could have strengthened it by including the reality that God always pursues His highest glory (Is 48:11; Rom 9:22-23)

typo. "Solomon's son David"?

Propitiation distinguished from expitation clearly. Helpful. NT language demonstrates that almost all atonement theories capture an element of truth, but only PSA can rightly be considered central and necessary for the others.

Atonement in the NT section was edifying. Atonement in the OT assumes too much by flattening the meaning/point of atonement. But the section on the sufficiency of levitical sacrifice and the old covenant was very good.

Generous, clear treatment of the theories of atonement. Clearly doesnt want to unnecessarily discount those background ideas which have oft been foregrounded. Much easier to engage than Berkhof. I've got to go back to Packer's What Did the Cross Achieve? now.

He's not so nice to limitarians, using pejorative framing and misrepresenting the WCF, Turretin, and Owen. Good summaries nonetheless.

"the biblical evidence leads us to posit an asymmetrical view of soteriological purpose—namely, unconditional election to life and conditional election to damnation."

Essentially infralapsarianism. Demarest gets here with some spotty exegesis (God raising up Pharoah is just "sustaining" his life? 1 Pet 2:8 and Rom 9:21-22 also). Doesnt address ultimate causality/decree

I think Naselli was better on this issue.

Treatment of the NT data is comprehensive. Relies heavily on Jewett. Sections on foreknowledge, chosing in Galatians, and especially "sheep" are very strong (and filled with reminders). Refutes mainly the "corridors of time" and exclusively corporate positions.

Rom 9 was light, but I expect more treatment in the section exploring "double" predestination.

Great quote about Israel's election and titles. Aptly addresses the coherence between corporate and individual election in the OT, esp on jacob and esau.

"Single" vs "double" predestination is essentially infra vs supralapsarianism for Demarest. Seems to me that both postitions involve some form of decree to condemnation, though.

Advances Calvin vs the Calvinists theory on double predestination. It'll be interesting to see how moderate Calvinism is distinguish from High in his evaluation(s).

None of the Arminian positions address the logical contradiction of actual outcomes governing God's activity.

He tips his hand with the questions he asks in the intro.

"Even though his own representation of the doctrine was flawed, Barth reminded us of the importance of this doctrine in the overall scheme of salvation: “The doctrine of election is the sum of the Gospel.”"

Application section was meh. Great first chapter though!

Strong on Irresistable Grace.
Weak on grace in relation to law keeping.

5-7 of qualities of special grace is quotable

"Prevenient grace [read "pre-salvation special grace] as a soteriological concept refers to the grace that works in the elect to illumine their darkened minds, soften their contrary wills, and incline their affections toward Christ and his offer of salvation."

"Special grace is not an entity or a thing but a multifaceted love and kindness that enters our world relationally to bless and save."

Dimensions of grace is a strong section.

Common grace had good quotes. I'd like to check out Kuyper here. Would have been nice for him to consider alternative terms (ex. universal love). Doesnt engage its relation to sancitifcation, but prolly wasnt a huge issue at publication.

Barth is weird. I feel like no one outside the Dutch is influnced by him, but maybe I'm wrong?

Helpful distinction between Semi Pelagians and Ev Arminans (cf. Iain Murray on Welsey).

"Cassian expressed this relationship as follows: “God, when he sees in us some beginnings of a good will, at once enlightens it and strengthens it and urges it on towards salvation, increasing that which he himself implanted, or which he sees to have arisen from our own efforts.” (NPNF, 11:426)

This is true, but only for believers. Eph 2, Ti 3, refute it as an initiating principle.

Sections on views of ordo salutis and def of salvation are useful (He distinguishes Reformed and Reformed Evangelical, interestingly). Also the section on relation to other systematics.

"Salvation thus is both a work of God and of the individual, where the latter’s effort and cooperation is graciously enabled by God."

Not sure I love this definition. I get it, but the priority of God's work seems muted here.