arapahoepark
Puritan Board Professor
I have been rereading some works on the new perspective, federal visionists etc. and their respective critiques/refutations and I have noticed commonalities that seem to unite most of the former (though perhaps I am late to game). Perhaps it is due to the Sanders' influence, but I see many who are enamored with the new perspective emphasize God's grace in everything. God was gracious with Adam before the fall and little changed since; God is gracious at Sinai (not in the CoG administration view way), God was gracious to Jesus due to his faithfulness, Abraham was faithful hence the declaration, etc. Many also promote two justifications (though depending on who they have very different definitions) all the while basically saying that were justified by faithfulness (not faith as in bare trust as a receiving instrument) and that this is so obviously gracious, presumably because circumcision isn't involved and pork is allowed (though many claim monergism too). Grace seems to obviously be reinterpreted in a more Roman Catholic way where in Barclay's words grace's efficacy is emphasized at the expense of it's incongruity and priority.
So I can't help but wonder if the axe at the root of the tree might just the philosophical idea of grace perfecting nature (Rome) vs grace renewing nature. Thoughts?
So I can't help but wonder if the axe at the root of the tree might just the philosophical idea of grace perfecting nature (Rome) vs grace renewing nature. Thoughts?
Last edited: