Featured Your opponent plays dumb.

Owen was saying the the death of Christ on the cross actually and specifically paid for the specific sins of all the elect at the time of His death. That it was an actual completed, true atonement. Any sin paid for at that time really was paid for at that time. Owen is saying that if it were possible for someone to have their sins paid for on the cross and then be later punished for them then they would be punished for something twice.

If you believe that the death on Christ on the cross actually paid for specific sins you have to believe in Owens view. If you want to say the death of Christ actually accomplished nothing specific or go with a different understanding of the atonement you can get around the argument. If you read The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by Owen, and you get through it you will either believe the atonement was specific to the elect or you have a different understanding of the atonement.

 

Yes, @37818 . I look at it that way too.
"If God through the death of His Son has promised salvation to all who comply with the gospel; and if there is no natural impossibility as to compliance nor any obstruction but that which arises from an aversion of heart, then exhortations to believe and be saved are consistent..." Andrew Fuller

Basically he goes on to say that election and the extent of the atonement are secret things of God. Even if Owen's view is totally correct as he writes in the "The Death of Death" we have the terms and promise of the gospel. If you comply with them you will be saved.

 

How about this one:

And the Angel of the LORD said to him, "Why have you struck your donkey these three times? Behold, I have come out to stand against you, because [your] way is perverse before Me. The donkey saw Me and turned aside from Me these three times. If she had not turned aside from Me, surely I would also have killed you by now, and let her live." - Numbers 22:32-33 [NKJV]​

(I don’t get to use that one much.)

 

In other words, he was not a Calvinist but only representing what their argument amounted to? If that's the case, then why would a Calvinist like the quote?

 

I'll take that as a no. You evidently did not understand the point of my post. My post was not a complaint. Maybe post #38 will be clearer for you?

 

Yeah, it said it, He said it. Oh, brother.

(That one frequently crosses my mind, yet I don't use it that much either. )

 

You take it wrong. I understand you. I quoted scripture to you. Did God not understand when he had Paul write to you to explain to you your error?

In #38 you wrote:
My original comment had to do with the quote seeming to object to the power of Jesus' blood in a manner similar to the way some object to certain Calvinist interpretations regarding election.

How the verses apply to that might be useful. What I find so intriguing is that Calvinists evidently don't see the irony, or is it hypocrisy? I'll just go with inconsistency. (Don't we all.)

I note that the above comment is incredibly vague, with no actual value to the thread.

 

That sounds suspiciously non-Calvinist, that is, synergistic rather than monergistic.

 

Yes I know. Unfortunately, that is the impression you can get from some of the Calvinists out there nowadays. They seem to get some kind of a thrill by pronouncing woe on people while somehow feeling themselves assured they are of course "elect". But the fact is, the only way to know you are elect is to comply with the terms and promise of the gospel. I can't born myself again, or feel saved or look for some mark of election. But I can comply with the terms of the gospel and if I do I am saved, and elect by the way.

 

Yeah, I keep forgetting that not all "Calvinists" are 5-point. Those posts make it sound like you do not hold to the P, Perseverance/Preservation of the saints.

 

If you want to rile up a Calvinist just tell him it's possible to be a 4 point Calvinist. But the letter I have most trouble with is the "L". I believe that God had specific people in mind who we call "the elect" when Christ came and did his mission. What I have trouble with is the concept that there are a bunch of people who are absolutely eliminated from any hope of redemption because of a primary reason being that Christ did not die for them. Or maybe it's just more of a matter of realizing that's how most average people are going to take it when they hear of a limited atonement.

 

God forbid that I should rile a Calvinist!

 

I am waiting for a reformed believer to explain James 2:24 "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." that is consistent with their theology.

 

How do you want it explained? From the standpoint that "justified" in James means proof before men and not the theological justification? Or the fact that it means that faith alone is said to be involved in actual justification but that such faith never stands alone but always results in works. Or do you mean the Calvinist Puritan understanding that some had - that inherent in saving faith is an intention to obey all scripture and be involved in good works. Or the fact that Ephesians says right after we are saved by faith that we were created unto good works? Where do you start? Probably start with the Calvinist Puritans who were and are accused of being works based legalists.

 

You are attempting to separate the two when they are not separate. Abraham was justified by faith and his faith was actively working so that the active works revealed his faith. Thus he is justified by his works because those works were the effect that faith caused to happen.