-
Reformation 21 has posted a wonderful short article on the atonement by J. I. Packer. He avoids the temptation to oversimplify. He also confronts the issues head on. Here’s a quote:

But I do not see how it can be denied that each New Testament book, whatever other job it may be doing, has in view, one way or another, Luther’s primary question: ‘How may a weak, perverse and guilty sinner find a gracious God?’… to the extent that modern developments, by filling our horizon with the great meta-narrative, distract us from pursuing Luther’s question in personal terms, they hinder as well as help in our appreciation of the gospel.

Comments

Falantedios said…
Thank you for stopping by Fumbling Towards Eternity. The Guthrie text is really pretty strong. I believe he has a slight bias in favor of the impossibility of apostasy, but in the text itself it is only a slight bias that comes through in a couple of sections. Otherwise, I think he is extremely even-handed and thorough, two things I greatly appreciate in a reference text.

About the Packer quote, I hope no one is denying that "each NT book... has in view, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER..." the question of atonement. However, I think his question arranges the scene backwards. I don't believe the Bible is about men finding God, but rather about God seeking men.

I'll read the whole article and chew on it, though.

in HIS love,
Nick
July 09, 2007
J. K. Jones said…
Thanks for the comment. I appreciate Guthrie too.

The problem with only quoting part of a text is that the context is not communicated. I am glad your are going to read the rest.

“… I hope no one is denying that "each NT book... has in view, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER..." the question of atonement…”

As I read the more recent books, I am not sure what they are trying to communicate. Some seem to ask questions that lead in the wrong directions.

Many of the current authors are very confusing to a layman like me. I do not follow arguments overlaid with technical words or indirectly referencing things I have not read.

Some current authors deny the justice and wrath of God and the sinfulness of men that make atonement necessary. That’s were I get off of the boat.

You are right in saying that God seeks us. I am sure Packer, the author of “Evangelism and The Sovereignty of God,” would agree. None of us seeks Him in ourselves (Romans 3:11). But those born of the Spirit certainly do seek Him and knowledge of what Christ did for them (Romans 8:5).
July 09, 2007
Augustinian Successor said…
Dear Brother,

I found your blog through Bro. Lito's blog. You said that logic applies to religion in your profile (About Me). I agree wholeheartedly too. Please visit the Trinity Foundation at http://www.trinityfoundation.org
where there is an excellent array of articles on logic and revelation. May you be encouraged by this.

TQ

In Christ,
Jason
July 10, 2007
J. K. Jones said…
Jason,

Thanks for the web address. I check it out.

You might also be interested in some of my other stuff here:

http://jkjonesthinks.blogspot.com/search/label/Logic

Thanks for your comment.

J. K.
July 10, 2007
Ryan Jones said…
I am a little bothered by the Packer quote. It seems to me that he is using circular reasoning: Luther's primary question is what the Bible is all about; those who would question whether Luther's question is the same question the Bible is answering are wrong because they are drawing us away from pursuing Luther's question.

Now I don't necessarily disagree with Packer that Luther's question is important, but if it causes us to dismiss a theological position without giving it a fair hearing (the New Perspective on Paul for instance), then my concern is that we have canonized Luther and made him infallible. I would much rather seek to interpret the Bible first and adjust my theology to fall in line than to figure out my theology first and make my interpretation conform to it. It feels like Packer is attempting to do the latter rather than the former.
July 12, 2007
J. K. Jones said…
RT,

I’d like to ask a favor. Please briefly comment on the New Perspective on Paul’s version of justification.

Also, the parts of the Packer article I left out are important to his argument. You might want to follow the links for the whole story.

J. K.
July 12, 2007
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Face of Terror

-
Osama Bin laden is dead. Since the rest of the internet is buzzing with opinions on that death, I thought I would weigh in. First, this is not the end of global terrorism. Like the Hydra of old, when one head is chopped off, two more take its place. We still need diligence in our fight against global terror. U. S. and allied Armed Forces still need our prayers. We still need a strong military and intelligence community. We have not yet cut off the Hydra’s immortal head. Second, the way to get to the ‘heart of the matter’ is with Christian missionary efforts. We must reach the people who make up those societies and population segments that produce terrorists . To tell a story I have told here before : Early in the twentieth century, Baptist evangelists preached through rural Mississippi and Alabama with such effectiveness that moonshiners could no longer sell their whiskey: All their customers were getting converted! In desperation, the whiskey sellers hired two men to murder on
Read more

The Canons of Dort

-
I believe that the Canons of Dort are true. This is a statement that came out the Synod of Dort, held from 1618-1619. The Canons of Dort outline the system of theology known today as the “five points of Calvinism.” The problem I have with most “five-point Calvinists” is that the Canons of Dort contain much more than five points. Many explanations of the TULIP (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and the perseverance of the saints) are gross simplifications of the Canons of Dort. [This is especially true of explanations given by those who oppose Calvinism. It is easier to knock down a straw man than it is to knock down a real man, and so it is easier to criticize an oversimplified Calvinism that the more robust form.] Some of those who teach the “five points” leave out some of the quotes below: This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than
Read more

Intelligent Design

-
The Intelligent Design (ID) movement makes much of the argument from irreducible complexity. Dr. Michael Behe has become famous for a simple example, the mousetrap. He points out that the mousetrap will not perform its function without all of its parts. The wooden base, the metal hammer, a spring, a catch and a metal bar to hold back the hammer are all necessary parts. One component by itself will not catch a mouse. Mainstream evolutionary science has a counter-argument. To paraphrase Dr. Kenneth Miller, if you disassemble the mousetrap, each component can serve as something useful on its own. If we take away the catch and metal bar, we have something left that can serve as a paper clip. The spring could make a simple two-section key chain. The wooden base makes a paperweight. Evolutionary processes like random mutation and natural selection can combine and retain the useful parts as the complicated evolves to perform the complex function. The useful parts are combined into the mousetr
Read more