Trigger or Treasure Chest

by hk flynn

I think a significant difference among our theological strands seems to be an intensely different perspective on the role of the offer of eternal life in Christian doctrine. There may be a better way to phrase it but that is at least in the ball park. It seems to me that in the free grace theology/dyspraxicfundanmentalist view, the offer of eternal life does not itself validate Christian doctrine. It is simply the trigger the Lord chose to regenerate sinners. Theoretically, the content of the offer could have concerned the Trinity, or the Virgin Birth or any number of other doctrines, but God chose it to be profoundly self reflexive: By believing that Jesus gives eternal life to anyone who believes in Him for that, one is given eternal life. The far more mainstream Devoted life/Leaving Oz/Raise your Ebenezer view is that it actually minimizes a doctrine to leave it out of the offer of eternal life. In this view anything absolutely essential and absolutely fundamental to the salvation of sinners should be represented in the content of the offer of eternal life. To not do so is a minimizing of those doctrinal truths. In a certain sense, I think this view treats the offer of eternal life as a treasure chest. My disagreement with it is I truly don't see why it isn't arbitrary to treat the content of the offer of eternal life in this manner. Why must it be a set of all crucial and relevant doctrinal concepts concerning salvation? Is there a biblical or philosophical reason for this? Aren't these relevant questions to ask?