For Whom Did Christ Die?... By John Owen

[Silverhair]

Thats all the Sheep, that supports limited, particular atonement.

Only in your befuddled dreams BF. You keep presenting a very strange view of the bible and salvation. Not sure where you got it from but it sure was not from scripture.

 

[Brightfame52]

@DaveXR650
.

Just understand that within that overall sovereignty of God, somehow are real invitations issued by the gospel and real decisions taken by men that have real consequences.

The non elect aren't called to Salvation, but they are accountable to the witness, testimony of the Gospel, that its Gods True Record, for instance, the Doctrines of Grace are the Gospel of Gods Grace, yet many dont believe the record of that, yet they arent part of the chosen and called.

Given the fact that the invitation is a reality, and the possibility of rejection is also a reality, I can see how people would say that the destiny of a person then is not set at the time of the crucifixion or at the earlier time when the atonement was planned. You've got two things going on that we as humans can't reconcile. Once God knows something He wants to do, or knows something He has determined to allow to happen - it will and must certainly happen. Yet, at the same time, until it happens, it actually has not happened

This is garbage and attacks the Sovereign immutable will of God. God has no will or desire to save the non elect, He has made them as vessels of Wrath and has fitted them for destruction, He hates the non elect

To say that the elect are saved at the atonement

They are, thats a fact, to say they arent is despising the Cross of Christ

will not work if you insist by that that it does not matter if the person comes to Christ by faith.

When they are saved, then they come to Faith

If you are so much into God's sovereignty, that you deny man has any real responsibility,

Man has no responsibility to get saved, thats works, law

you are going against Owen. Which is fine as Owen was a man. But I wouldn't quote him without knowing the whole story of how he taught.

You must be following owen and not scripture. I have much respect for Owen, God used his treatise " the death of death" to convert me to limited atonement back in 1984, by his scripture arguments, but I followed him as long as he argued with scripture, follow scripture friend, not owen

 

[Brightfame52]

Only in your befuddled dreams BF. You keep presenting a very strange view of the bible and salvation. Not sure where you got it from but it sure was not from scripture.

God has a sense of humor, you went and quoted a scripture that supports me and against yourself.

 

[Silverhair]

God has a sense of humor, you went and quoted a scripture that supports me and against yourself.

Only in your mind BF.

 

[Silverhair]

@DaveXR650
.

The non elect aren't called to Salvation, but they are accountable to the witness, testimony of the Gospel, that its Gods True Record, for instance, the Doctrines of Grace are the Gospel of Gods Grace, yet many dont believe the record of that, yet they arent part of the chosen and called.



This is garbage and attacks the Sovereign immutable will of God. God has no will or desire to save the non elect, He has made them as vessels of Wrath and has fitted them for destruction, He hates the non elect



They are, thats a fact, to say they arent is despising the Cross of Christ



When they are saved, then they come to Faith



Man has no responsibility to get saved, thats works, law



You must be following owen and not scripture. I have much respect for Owen, God used his treatise " the death of death" to convert me to limited atonement back in 1984, by his scripture arguments, but I followed him as long as he argued with scripture, follow scripture friend, not owen

BF for your own sake take the time to do some serious bible study with a good bible teacher that will help you see the truth of God's word.

 

[DaveXR650]

You must be following owen and not scripture. I have much respect for Owen, God used his treatise " the death of death" to convert me to limited atonement back in 1984, by his scripture arguments, but I followed him as long as he argued with scripture, follow scripture friend, not owen

I believed in the idea of a limited atonement for a brief period of time, mainly from reading Owens "The Death of Death..." also. But I never really was satisfied with it as far as the pure theology of what limited atonement says. Because I had read so much of other things that Owen wrote and other Puritans it really didn't bother me because I knew how Owen and the rest preached.

What you need to understand is that one simply cannot read Owen without getting his scriptural arguments; every other sentence is scripture. Don't you find it funny that you yourself came to believe limited atonement by way of Owen, yet now you call the very words of Owen garbage if they don't agree with your current view? This is the simple fact. You can believe any theological explanation of the extent of the atonement you want. Owen certainly did believe in limited atonement. But Owen himself also said that you must come to Christ by faith and you have numerous encouragements from scripture that promise you that if you do, Christ will save you. He warned everyone not to speculate on the extent of the atonement when someone is given an invitation (yes, an "invitation") to come to Christ.

I think I understand somewhat the reasons Owen had to oppose the Arminian faction. Especially since they were going semi-Pelagian and getting into the whole area of how you keep yourself saved and so on. The stakes were high. But as far as the theology is concerned, I myself prefer the explanation of the extent of the atonement given by J.C. Ryle and Bruce Ware, if you want a modern example. Frankly, the style and type of arguing you are doing on here is not helpful and doesn't represent Calvinism well at all.

 

[Brightfame52]

I believed in the idea of a limited atonement for a brief period of time, mainly from reading Owens "The Death of Death..." also. But I never really was satisfied with it as far as the pure theology of what limited atonement says. Because I had read so much of other things that Owen wrote and other Puritans it really didn't bother me because I knew how Owen and the rest preached.

What you need to understand is that one simply cannot read Owen without getting his scriptural arguments; every other sentence is scripture. Don't you find it funny that you yourself came to believe limited atonement by way of Owen, yet now you call the very words of Owen garbage if they don't agree with your current view? This is the simple fact. You can believe any theological explanation of the extent of the atonement you want. Owen certainly did believe in limited atonement. But Owen himself also said that you must come to Christ by faith and you have numerous encouragements from scripture that promise you that if you do, Christ will save you. He warned everyone not to speculate on the extent of the atonement when someone is given an invitation (yes, an "invitation") to come to Christ.

I think I understand somewhat the reasons Owen had to oppose the Arminian faction. Especially since they were going semi-Pelagian and getting into the whole area of how you keep yourself saved and so on. The stakes were high. But as far as the theology is concerned, I myself prefer the explanation of the extent of the atonement given by J.C. Ryle and Bruce Ware, if you want a modern example. Frankly, the style and type of arguing you are doing on here is not helpful and doesn't represent Calvinism well at all.

Sorry Christ doesn't invite the non elect to come for salvation, He didn't die for them. In fact, the invite, call , summons is strictly to them who are already saved, made alive.

 

[Silverhair]

Sorry Christ doesn't invite the non elect to come for salvation, He didn't die for them. In fact, the invite, call , summons is strictly to them who are already saved, made alive.

BF it is funny that you tell @DaveXR650 to follow scripture but you do not do so. You should take your own advice and drop this false non-biblical theology that you are trumpeting.

 

[Van]

If you condition salvation, any part of it, on something you do, its works, its a denial of the Person and Work of Christ. Even the Faith to believe on Christ is the fruit of His death.

You can deny Romans 4:16 till the cows come home, but election for salvation based on faith is Not a works based salvation.

 

[Brightfame52]

You can deny Romans 4:16 till the cows come home, but election for salvation based on faith is Not a works based salvation.

I never denies Rom 4:16. Nevertheless, in fact that tells us Christ died specifically for a seed, not all mankind.

16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

The seed is Gods elect, Christs death makes the promise of Salvation sure to them Isa 53:10

10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

 

[Brightfame52]

You can deny Romans 4:16 till the cows come home, but election for salvation based on faith is Not a works based salvation.

Also you deny Rom 4:16 because its plainly saying Faith is by[according to] Grace, so its not of ourselves, its a gift of Grace, people believe because of grace Acts 18:27

27 And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:

 

[Van]

I never denies Rom 4:16. Nevertheless, in fact that tells us Christ died specifically for a seed, not all mankind.

16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

The seed is Gods elect, Christs death makes the promise of Salvation sure to them Isa 53:10

10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all, not for only some. Everyone who receives everlasting life through believing into Him becomes our Lord's "seed."

You indicated salvation through faith and election for salvation through faith removed grace from salvation, an obvious fallacy.

 

[Van]

Also you deny Rom 4:16 because its plainly saying Faith is by[according to] Grace, so its not of ourselves, its a gift of Grace, people believe because of grace Acts 18:27

27 And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:

Grace is a gift from God. Duh
Your nonstop effort to misrepresent Biblical doctrine will not earn rewards.

 

[DaveXR650]

. In fact, the invite, call , summons is strictly to them who are already saved, made alive.

You have to be willing to allow all the scripture to speak. What you say above is what happens when you try to make everything fit your human mind. By your constant deductions and "well if this, then this must be true" you end up with statements that are obviously ridiculous. You have deduced your way into saying that the invitation and call are only to those already saved? That's absurd.

Scripture clearly teaches that invitations and appeals are made to men for them to repent and be saved. And it clearly teaches that men who don't are responsible for their own destruction. Scripture also clearly teaches election and the sovereignty of God in man's salvation. I think Owen did a good job showing both truths. If anyone is truly interested in learning something I would recommend J.C. Ryle's "Old Paths". Ryle was not a strict 5 pointer but I think a good Calvinist anyway. He explains the compatibility of God's sovereignty and mans responsibility better than anyone I know of so far.

 

[Brightfame52]

Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all, not for only some. Everyone who receives everlasting life through believing into Him becomes our Lord's "seed."

You indicated salvation through faith and election for salvation through faith removed grace from salvation, an obvious fallacy.

For all the seed, the many Matt 20:28

Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

And in case you dont know, the word ransom is the greek word lytron:

to liberate many from the misery and penalty of their sins,

So thats the blessing received for all whom He was a Ransom for.

We know all without exception havent been liberated from the misery and penalty of their sins, so His Ransom was limited to only them who are.

 

[Brightfame52]

Grace is a gift from God. Duh
Your nonstop effort to misrepresent Biblical doctrine will not earn rewards.

I know grace is a gift from God, duh

 

[Brightfame52]

You have to be willing to allow all the scripture to speak. What you say above is what happens when you try to make everything fit your human mind. By your constant deductions and "well if this, then this must be true" you end up with statements that are obviously ridiculous. You have deduced your way into saying that the invitation and call are only to those already saved? That's absurd.

Scripture clearly teaches that invitations and appeals are made to men for them to repent and be saved. And it clearly teaches that men who don't are responsible for their own destruction. Scripture also clearly teaches election and the sovereignty of God in man's salvation. I think Owen did a good job showing both truths. If anyone is truly interested in learning something I would recommend J.C. Ryle's "Old Paths". Ryle was not a strict 5 pointer but I think a good Calvinist anyway. He explains the compatibility of God's sovereignty and mans responsibility better than anyone I know of so far.

In fact, the invite, call , summons is strictly to them who are already saved, made alive.

 

[DaveXR650]

... they are already saved when they are called, because Christ has already taken away their sins, and Spirit has already quickened them.

Sorry Christ doesn't invite the non elect to come for salvation, He didn't die for them. In fact, the invite, call , summons is strictly to them who are already saved, made alive.

In fact, the invite, call , summons is strictly to them who are already saved, made alive.

Are we going to be able to discuss any further than this or are we done. I get it. And it's great to be sure of yourself but is there anything you can say on the fact that you go way further than Owen or Calvin for that matter?

 

[Brightfame52]

Are we going to be able to discuss any further than this or are we done. I get it. And it's great to be sure of yourself but is there anything you can say on the fact that you go way further than Owen or Calvin for that matter?

As far as Im concerned we can be done, just understand, the Call/Invite is only to the saved, and its effectual. God doesnt call or invite the vessels of wrath He purposed to destruction to a participation in Salvation, He decreed their damnation, and has destined them to disobedience to the word 1 Pet 2:8

8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

The ones He called are in Vs 9

9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

 

[DaveXR650]

8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

That's a good verse. Both aspects are illustrated. The word to some is offensive and they are disobedient to it. Those are people who are not elect. So if someone were to say to you that they worry that they might not be elect. What do you tell them? "Yep. You may not be and if that's the case then sorry about your luck." Of course not. You tell them like Owen did, that Christ has made everything ready for them and if they will repent and believe they will be saved. They will indeed and in truth are "elect" if they do.

The difference between a semi-Pelagian and a Calvinist is that the semi-Pelagian believes that when I say they are elect if they do repent and believe - they believe that all the universe waits to see what their decision will be. The Calvinist believes that the elect really are the ones who will repent and believe - yet, and this is the most important part, the elect really and truly must,(and will) repent and believe.

Within that framework we all have to figure out some concept of how this works in our own individual minds. Plenty of people leave it that you must make the final decision and therefore it indeed is up to you. Then there are various beliefs about how much the Holy Spirit works and convicts and convinces and leads to faith or gives faith and whether this can be resisted. Those that lean toward the decisive factor being the work of the Holy Spirit would include 5 point Calvinists like Owen all the way to 4 point Calvinists or "moderate" Calvinists like J.C. Ryle or Ware, or any Baptist or Evangelical preacher who warns in his preaching not to trifle with the Holy Spirit because you can't come unless he calls and this call is personal and not in your control.

We can have differences in our background theology and yet there still be a lot of overlap in actual preaching and practice. Or, we can be so unable to balance scripture that we go extreme and unscriptural one way or the other. In my opinion, Owen, and Ryle and all the Puritans and Edwards and Bonar and Spurgeon and Baxter and Wesley were all within this range and any good Baptist, Calvinist or not, can get a lot of good out of any of those guys. If you are not a Calvinist, or even if you hate Calvinism, I promise you a great blessing if you read the sermons of any of those guys.