Understanding John Owen's argument.

[DaveXR650]

I can sympathize with a weaker stand on "Limited Atonement" because the case from Scripture really is 'circumstantial'. There are a lot of "worlds" and "all men" in verses that require gymnastics to reach the WCF conclusions. There are just too many "His sheep" type verses to drink the Kool-Aid and embrace "Universal Atonement".

I reckon it is an issue that is more complex than a simple "either/or".

So I am a 5 pointer, but only willing to "fight" on 4 of the "hills". Neither side has a lock on "Atonement" IMHO.

Yes, I started a firestorm on here a few weeks ago and received rebukes and anathemas for saying the same thing. And I do think that the idea of a limited atonement is unique in the TULIP because it's the only point that has an irreversible thing done in the past that physically makes it impossible for some to be saved. You should read J.I. Packer's introduction of Owens work where he, while being quite tough on Arminianism, points out the deficiencies of the TULIP.

https://corepastor.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/j-i-packers-introductory-essay1.pdf

 

[37818]

Do the damned need to be "deeper damned"?
Does God need to go out of His way to increase the earned torment?

(Maybe I am the only person in the world that finds that mental image troubling.)

I am persuaded Christ died for all, both those whom He saves and the perishing. Luke 22:20-22. To believe otherwise is to deny God's written word.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

What translation translates the "he was sanctified" in Hebrews to refer to the Son? [Having the meaning "was" of no longer sanctified.] I know of none.

I think it is evident that the 'he' can refer either to the Lord Jesus or to the one who trampled Him underfoot. I know of no translation that limits it to one or the other. Personally, I do not believe that it is possible for someone 'sanctified' or set apart by the blood of Christ to fall away in such a fashion. John 17:19 is a clear indication that it does indeed refer to our Lord.

Some Presbyterian Calvinists see the verse as referring to those they believe are in the New Covenant through infant 'baptism.' In the past I have had some lively discussion with such folk on the Puritan Board. That is obviously not an option for Reformed Baptists and nor was it an option for John Owen when he wrote his commentary on Hebrews. A.W. Pink's commentary agrees with Owen as did the 17th Century Particular Baptists like Nehemiah Coxe.

 

[JesusFan]

I think it is evident that the 'he' can refer either to the Lord Jesus or to the one who trampled Him underfoot. I know of no translation that limits it to one or the other. Personally, I do not believe that it is possible for someone 'sanctified' or set apart by the blood of Christ to fall away in such a fashion. John 17:19 is a clear indication that it does indeed refer to our Lord.

Some Presbyterian Calvinists see the verse as referring to those they believe are in the New Covenant through infant 'baptism.' In the past I have had some lively discussion with such folk on the Puritan Board. That is obviously not an option for Reformed Baptists and nor was it an option for John Owen when he wrote his commentary on Hebrews. A.W. Pink's commentary agrees with Owen as did the 17th Century Particular Baptists like Nehemiah Coxe.

Think those who reject Jesus are the very same John stated were among and with us, but were not actually of us

 

[JesusFan]

Yes, I started a firestorm on here a few weeks ago and received rebukes and anathemas for saying the same thing. And I do think that the idea of a limited atonement is unique in the TULIP because it's the only point that has an irreversible thing done in the past that physically makes it impossible for some to be saved. You should read J.I. Packer's introduction of Owens work where he, while being quite tough on Arminianism, points out the deficiencies of the TULIP.

https://corepastor.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/j-i-packers-introductory-essay1.pdf

Limited atonement, like so much Calvinist theology, has been redefined by many to make it mean something total foreign and alien to what we meant by that term

 

[JesusFan]

I am told that John Calvin himself is technically a "4 point Calvinist" since he would not go so far as to affirm Limited Atonement since it was a "logical" conclusion, but he could not find it "explicitly" stated in scripture (unlike the other 4 points). [... and I know the actual "T.U.L.I.P." came along much later, but the ideas go back to Calvin's day].

I can sympathize with a weaker stand on "Limited Atonement" because the case from Scripture really is 'circumstantial'. There are a lot of "worlds" and "all men" in verses that require gymnastics to reach the WCF conclusions. There are just too many "His sheep" type verses to drink the Kool-Aid and embrace "Universal Atonement".

I reckon it is an issue that is more complex than a simple "either/or".

So I am a 5 pointer, but only willing to "fight" on 4 of the "hills". Neither side has a lock on "Atonement" IMHO.

Limited atonement view does provide for a definite atonement, unlike classic arminiasm though

 

[37818]

I think it is evident that the 'he' can refer either to the Lord Jesus or to the one who trampled Him underfoot. I know of no translation that limits it to one or the other. Personally, I do not believe that it is possible for someone 'sanctified' or set apart by the blood of Christ to fall away in such a fashion. John 17:19 is a clear indication that it does indeed refer to our Lord.

Some Presbyterian Calvinists see the verse as referring to those they believe are in the New Covenant through infant 'baptism.' In the past I have had some lively discussion with such folk on the Puritan Board. That is obviously not an option for Reformed Baptists and nor was it an option for John Owen when he wrote his commentary on Hebrews. A.W. Pink's commentary agrees with Owen as did the 17th Century Particular Baptists like Nehemiah Coxe.

That this is how you understand the "he was sanctified" in Hebrews 10:29. But what translation?

 

[atpollard]

I am persuaded Christ died for all, both those whom He saves and the perishing. Luke 22:20-22. To believe otherwise is to deny God's written word.

Scripture is usually much clearer on WHAT than on WHY.
You are strongly affirming the written WHAT.
I am questioning a stated WHY (which is not even from scripture, but an exegetical conclusion drawn from combining multiple scriptures.)

 

[atpollard]

Limited atonement view does provide for a definite atonement, unlike classic arminiasm though

Agree ... and THAT is a hill worth fighting for.
That JESUS SAVES is a reality and not some hypothetical ideal.
That is where most non-Reformed views tend to fall apart and "scripture" or "logic" starts to fail.

 

[37818]

I am questioning a stated WHY (which is not even from scripture, but an exegetical conclusion drawn from combining multiple scriptures.)

Please give this construct for that why. Step by step.

 

[Iconoclast]

John Owen in his To The Reader, in his book, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, wrote this complex question, "To what purpose serves the general ransom, but only to assert that Almighty God would have the precious blood of his dear Son poured out for innumerable souls whom he will not have to share in any drop thereof, and so, in respect of them, to be spilt in vain, or else to be shed for them only that they might be the deeper damned?"

With this came to mind Romans 14:9, "For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living."

If you post more of Owen directly then progress can be made here.
Your impressions do not address the issues raised.

 

[atpollard]

WHAT #1:

Almighty God would have the precious blood of his dear Son poured out for innumerable souls

WHY #1 (option 1):

to be spilt in vain,

WHY #1 (option 2):

that they might be the deeper damned?"

WHAT #2:

Romans 14:9, "For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived,

WHY #2:

that he might be Lord both of the dead and living."

WHY #2 is a Scriptural reason for WHAT #2.

WHY #1 (option 1) and WHY #1 (option 2) are both human speculation on the reason for WHAT #1.
I can provide scripture that affirms WHAT #1. I cannot provide scripture that makes the claims in WHY #1 (option 1) or WHY #1 (option 2). I suspect that neither you nor the quoted author can provide scripture that directly affirms the claims in WHY #1 (option 1) or WHY #1 (option 2), because those claims are based on logical extrapolations and inferences from scripture rather than directly revealed truths.

I think that is the best I can explain the point that I was making. Beyond this, words fail me to communicate my intended meaning.

 

[37818]

If you post more of Owen directly then progress can be made here.
Your impressions do not address the issues raised.

What I posted from Owen was what he wrote rhetorically, which he did not actually believe. But was in an agreement with my view of the redemption being general and not universalism. What from Owen do you want to hear? He argues against an universalism. Understand I believe Christ secured salvation for those whom He saves. And the condemning Judge of those who do not obey His gospel. Romans 8:34. 1 Timothy 2:4-6. 2 Thessalonians 1:8.

 

[JonC]

The healing from sin, 1 Peter 2:24, ". . . being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. . . ."

Yep .

 

[37818]

Isaiah 45:23, ". . . I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. . . ."
Romans 14:11-12, ". . . For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. . . ."
Philippians 2:9-11, ". . . Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. . . ."

Romans 14:9, ". . . For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. . . ."

Acts of the Apostles 10:42, ". . . to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. . . ."

 

[JesusFan]

Agree ... and THAT is a hill worth fighting for.
That JESUS SAVES is a reality and not some hypothetical ideal.
That is where most non-Reformed views tend to fall apart and "scripture" or "logic" starts to fail.

Just makes far more sense that God would have worked out a plan to save really then just merely potentially lost sinners

 

[DaveXR650]

If you believe that God, out of love for you, actively sought you out and saved you and is going to keep you because he loves you, then you can read Owen's "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" and if you get through it (and few people will) you will realize that the atonement was part of that plan for you also. And you will get some benefit from the effort you put out to read this work. I stumbled through it once and I am not going to do it again. I would not recommend this book at first. I would try an easy to read translation of "The Mortification of Sin". This helped me the most as a non-Calvinist Baptist to start thinking there was a whole different level of doing business with God than what I was being taught and then I was more open to look into the Calvinistic background of the Puritans.

 

[37818]

For someone who does not agree with every argument John makes, this work by John is so very important, those who think they will not agree should understand his arguments. These things need to be thought carefully through. Note my view the particular redemption is the more important part of the general redemption, which is not universal in the sense John argues against.
Romans 8:34, 1 Timothy 2:4-6 and 1 , Timothy 4:10.

There are points of argument John does miss.

 

[JesusFan]

If you believe that God, out of love for you, actively sought you out and saved you and is going to keep you because he loves you, then you can read Owen's "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" and if you get through it (and few people will) you will realize that the atonement was part of that plan for you also. And you will get some benefit from the effort you put out to read this work. I stumbled through it once and I am not going to do it again. I would not recommend this book at first. I would try an easy to read translation of "The Mortification of Sin". This helped me the most as a non-Calvinist Baptist to start thinking there was a whole different level of doing business with God than what I was being taught and then I was more open to look into the Calvinistic background of the Puritans.

If you want some "fun reading" from the Baptist side on this, try reading some John Gill

 

[Martin Marprelate]

That this is how you understand the "he was sanctified" in Hebrews 10:29. But what translation?

I'm not sure I understand the question. But I base my opinion on the Greek if you really want to know.