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

He's tipped his hand that he sees regeneration as post conversion previously. And I know he sees it as a New cov reality, exclusively. Both i disagree with at this point. I need to read humbly here to not make his observations wasteful to me

Strong closing applications, though some ohrasing was unhelpful. Overall, Demarest is one of the good guys on conversion, a battleground in the 20th century. It's interesting and a little sad that most of his polemics in this chapter were against professed "Evangelicals."

Great on the Lordship issue. Connecting the soteriological issue with the Christological issue (soveriegnty+Prophet, priest, king) is incisive.

Good on the relation between faith and repentance in conversion. Could have been clearer about the distinction between converting and continuing repentance.

Hammers the idea that faith precedes regeneration from texts that clearly do not teach such a belief.

Love the distinct view of the ways each NT author uses faith and repentance.

Some lovely quotes on these defintions. The three-fold breakdown of faith was well-done.

Still not toally convinced calling should have its own slot in the ordo.

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.”"