Understanding John Owen's argument.

[tyndale1946]

Thanks for the welcome. Forums are indeed always an asylum. One more inmate now.

It wasn’t a wholesale dismissal of Owens at all. It’s a common grammatical issue that few English speakers recognize. Christ was made sin (the condition and state of being) for all mankind. The atonement begins with Objective Justification available to all men (neither Limited/Particular Calvinist Atonement nor Unlimited Arminian Atonement, since both are predicated upon Christ dying for the sinS - resulting acts - of some OR all men).

Christ didn’t die for the sinS (individual resulting acts) of man, whether for some OR all of them. Owens, like most others after him, frames Objective Justification as Subjective Justification (the atonement for sin is for hamartia the condition, not hamartemata the acts). Atonement has two aspects, not just one.

Another issue is whether there even IS an Ordo Salutis. Everyone on “either side” presumes there is. We don’t need Infralapsarianism OR Supralapsarianism for authentic Biblical Monergism and avoiding Semi-Pelagianism (which is what Arminianism is inevitably conjoined with.)

Just a bare bones died in the wool believer for over 50 years... Welcome to the BB... Btw... Did you bring a translator with you?... This old timer is just asking... Brother Glen

 

[CONSPICILLUM]

Just a bare bones died in the wool believer for over 50 years... Welcome to the BB... Btw... Did you bring a translator with you?... This old timer is just asking... Brother Glen

No translator. But there are endless lexical and linguistic resources available to explicate the richness of meaning in the words given in scripture.

 

[DaveXR650]

Objective Justification and Subjective Justification should never be conflated.

Well I would never do that because they are the same thing. Seriously what is your view of the atonement and does it match any commonly used theory or is this of your own invention?

 

[CONSPICILLUM]

Well I would never do that because they are the same thing. Seriously what is your view of the atonement and does it match any commonly used theory or is this of your own invention?

Incorrect. Objective Justification is for hamartia as the state of being and condition (sin). Subjective Justification is for hamartemata (resulting from hamartano) as the indiviudual acts (sinS). You indeed conflate them, but you’re in the vast majority so I guess there’s comfort in that.

This is Augustinian as presented in (authentic Monergistic) Lutheran doctrine, just expressed in a manner that Evangelicals can possibly comprehend (instead of the endless diatribe of Owen-esque conflict over Christ dying for the sinS of some or all men).

BTW… Your view of atonement is an invention, whether you did it or not. The above truth comes from basic Greek grammar. Atonement doctrine is compromised when it’s built only/primarily upon the resulting noun on the post-action side of the verb rather than the primary noun. It’s not my fault English speakers have obstacles they can’t and won’t overcome in reading the inspired text.

 

[DaveXR650]

Stating they were the same was an attempt at humor because I actually do know what conflate means, but I guess it fell flat. If I concede that you do an excellent word salad and are an expert in Greek grammar, would you be willing now to explain your view of the purpose and effect of the death of Christ? My view is that scripture is inspired and with great wisdom behind it. The linking of the atonement with sins starts back in the old testament and runs constantly through the new. People who count such things say that it may be the number one subject in scripture. In the old testament ceremonies are used to show it as well as verbal explanation - probably to help us thousands of years later to overcome language barriers and changing cultures. In light of this, trying to explain this all away by saying that it's only built on a resulting noun on the post action side of a verb is ridiculous. If you have a theory state it. I also expect you to give some kind of reference to a group or a theological school of thought that holds to your view. No one on this board has the status to propose novel theories without citing some kind of reference.

 

[JesusFan]

Stating they were the same was an attempt at humor because I actually do know what conflate means, but I guess it fell flat. If I concede that you do an excellent word salad and are an expert in Greek grammar, would you be willing now to explain your view of the purpose and effect of the death of Christ? My view is that scripture is inspired and with great wisdom behind it. The linking of the atonement with sins starts back in the old testament and runs constantly through the new. People who count such things say that it may be the number one subject in scripture. In the old testament ceremonies are used to show it as well as verbal explanation - probably to help us thousands of years later to overcome language barriers and changing cultures. In light of this, trying to explain this all away by saying that it's only built on a resulting noun on the post action side of a verb is ridiculous. If you have a theory state it. I also expect you to give some kind of reference to a group or a theological school of thought that holds to your view. No one on this board has the status to propose novel theories without citing some kind of reference.

the PST theory best explains and reflects what happened at the Cross of Christ

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Christ was made sin (singular anarthrous hamartia) for all mankind

Hello CONSPICILLUM! Welcome to the BB.
2 Corinthians 5:21, NKJV. 'For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.'
Why do you believe that Christ was made sin for all mankind? The text doesn't appear to say that. Paul is writing 'to the church of God which is in Corinth with all the saints who are in all Achaia' (2 Corinthians 1:2).

 

[CONSPICILLUM]

Stating they were the same was an attempt at humor because I actually do know what conflate means, but I guess it fell flat. If I concede that you do an excellent word salad and are an expert in Greek grammar, would you be willing now to explain your view of the purpose and effect of the death of Christ? My view is that scripture is inspired and with great wisdom behind it. The linking of the atonement with sins starts back in the old testament and runs constantly through the new. People who count such things say that it may be the number one subject in scripture. In the old testament ceremonies are used to show it as well as verbal explanation - probably to help us thousands of years later to overcome language barriers and changing cultures. In light of this, trying to explain this all away by saying that it's only built on a resulting noun on the post action side of a verb is ridiculous. If you have a theory state it. I also expect you to give some kind of reference to a group or a theological school of thought that holds to your view. No one on this board has the status to propose novel theories without citing some kind of reference.

Indeed, I missed your humor. Hard to tell in the written format, especially when I’ve barely read anything you’ve written. Here’s a belated chuckle for you.

I adhere to Penal Substitutionary Atonement, but more from a filter of Martin Luther than others. A summary of his position might be “Universal Atonement/Limited Election” as I’ve seen it expressed. My explanation was to demonstrate there’s a difference between sin (the condition) and sins (the acts committed). It only seems to be “word salad” because most think conceptually rather than lexically.

There sure are a lot of novel theories on most forums. All I’ve generally seen is self-papacy from everyone’s individual doctrinal innovations. This forum seems to be litttle different from my perusal, so your last comment is confusing.

 

[DaveXR650]

There sure are a lot of novel theories on most forums. All I’ve generally seen is self-papacy from everyone’s individual doctrinal innovations. This forum seems to be litttle different from my perusal, so your last comment is confusing.

Well, you're definitely right on that. I'm not an expert on the theories of the atonement but I am glad you adhere to penal substitutionary atonement. But that makes me even more puzzled by your statement:

It’s the whole (inhabited) cosmos that is being redeemed, not merely mankind.

When properly understood, this resigns Calvinism and Arminianism to a false dichotomy based upon false premises.

So is there a school of thought that teaches what you are saying? You list yourself as a Baptist, and I know that is a big tent but is there some church or organization that teaches this?

 

[37818]

@CONSPICILLUM I would like to get your thoughts on Owen's rhetorical question.

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?"

 

[37818]

@DaveXR650 my view has a similar take with @CONSPICILLUM view. I differ on the meaning of the New Testament cosmos. I hold it refers to mankind. But our resurrected Christ is the beginning [Colossians 1:18, Revelation 3:14, Romans 8:21-22] of the New Heaven and New Earth.

 

[CONSPICILLUM]

Well, you're definitely right on that. I'm not an expert on the theories of the atonement but I am glad you adhere to penal substitutionary atonement. But that makes me even more puzzled by your statement:


So is there a school of thought that teaches what you are saying? You list yourself as a Baptist, and I know that is a big tent but is there some church or organization that teaches this?

As a lifelong Southern Baptist, I don’t think I’ve met any two Pastors or laypersons who have the same doctrine, including me being in Associate Pastoral Ministries for 12 years (1984-1995) before diverting to para-church ministry.

In the ensuing 27+ years since my exit from church staff positions, I’ve taken it upon myself to correct my own theological illiteracy by many means. This includes intensive study and examination of the biblical languages and extensive reading of the Patristics, etc.

I’d say the Lutheran confessional positions (or at least Martin Luther’s writings and commentary, et al) are as close to one homogenous source as I can claim. I most often begin with the Crux Theologorum mentality of paradox, much like how the East has their apophatic or negative doctrine. Where there is God, there is paradox to/for man.

No one can have their sinS atoned without their sin being atoned. My perception is that this point is why there are so many atonement models. All are focused on sinS rather than sin. Christ was made (poieo) sin. But the primary need of man is resurrection from spiritual death (not to make this a dichotomy, but to point out that sinS are what everyone is fixated upon).

Modernism (among many dozens of other -isms and -ologies) has had a hyper-individualization effect on the general soteriological message of the church at large. Some of the fallout of all of that is the sad fact that Baptist churches in their automony have become arbiters of most any doctrine one wants to claim on the Christian continuum. They run the gamut. (Eschatology also taints the doctrine of many, because it becomes their hermeneutical lens for everything they read in the text. Here I’m referring primarily to Dispensationalists, but it’s true of all to some extent.)

When someone has bought into Futurist Eschatology, it makes it hard to see the Cosmological implications in soteriology; especially if someone has also imbibed the Heavenly Destiny fallacy. There will be a new heavens and a new earth, and we don’t have to wait an additional millennium for it to come to pass.

 

[DaveXR650]

Thanks, Conspicillum, for the explanation. That explains a lot and I appreciate it.

No one can have their sinS atoned without their sin being atoned.

That's actually one of Owens main arguments for a particular atonement. Just out of curiosity, and don't answer if you don't want but are you still on the page of individual salvation?

 

[CONSPICILLUM]

@DaveXR650 my view has a similar take with @CONSPICILLUM view. I differ on the meaning of the New Testament cosmos. I hold it refers to mankind. But our resurrected Christ is the beginning [Colossians 1:18, Revelation 3:14, Romans 8:21-22] of the New Heaven and New Earth.

The lexical meaning of cosmos is focused on it be inhabited. Without the inhabitation by mankind, the cosmos would be of no significance at any time. It seems we agree.

 

[CONSPICILLUM]

Thanks, Conspicillum, for the explanation. That explains a lot and I appreciate it.

That's actually one of Owens main arguments for a particular atonement. Just out of curiosity, and don't answer if you don't want but are you still on the page of individual salvation?

Perhaps the best simple way to say it is:
One cannot have their sinS atoned without having their sin atoned; but one can have their sin atoned without having their sinS atoned.

In 2Cor. 5:21, scripture refers to Christ being made sin for US, who knew no sin, that WE might be made the righteousness of God in him;

Those who have only had the Objective Justification of Christ being made sin for all mankind, but don’t have Subjective Justification as individuals.

Absolutely I’m on the page of individual salvation. Atonement for all sin; but atonement only for the sinS of the elect. Individuals are from the whole of mankind. Atonement is sufficient for all, but only efficient for the elect. That’s because sin is atoned in Christ for all mankind, but sinS are only atoned for Believers. Cosmological and Anthropological aren’t a dichotomy, they’re a precedent of divine order.

 

[CONSPICILLUM]

Hello CONSPICILLUM! Welcome to the BB.
2 Corinthians 5:21, NKJV. 'For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.'
Why do you believe that Christ was made sin for all mankind? The text doesn't appear to say that. Paul is writing 'to the church of God which is in Corinth with all the saints who are in all Achaia' (2 Corinthians 1:2).

Yes, this passage refers to the Objective Justification of General Atonement for the sin (singular anarthrous hamartia) of all mankind as it applies to the elect. The sin of all mankind is atoned, but the sinS of only the elect are also atoned. The sinS of unbeliers are not atoned.

This is why some divide Atonement and Election as they do. Christ didn’t just atone for the sin condition of the elect, He was made sin (the anarthrous noun construct would not exclude anything relative to sin in the cosmos, so it must include all mankind in general). 1Cor. 5:21 is unaffected because it specifies that it’s for US so that WE (in contrast to those who only have atonement of sin and not sinS) might be made the righteousness of God in him.

 

[JesusFan]

@DaveXR650 my view has a similar take with @CONSPICILLUM view. I differ on the meaning of the New Testament cosmos. I hold it refers to mankind. But our resurrected Christ is the beginning [Colossians 1:18, Revelation 3:14, Romans 8:21-22] of the New Heaven and New Earth.

God the father only intended to have the Cross of Christ atone as payment in full for those whom he destined and chosen to save by it

 

[DaveXR650]

Absolutely I’m on the page of individual salvation. Atonement for all sin; but atonement only for the sinS of the elect.

How would that be different from Amyraldianism in your view? Also, if you are familiar with the Marrow contraversy, is this like when the Marrow men would say "Christ has died" so they could make a true offer of Christ to everyone but did not want to go so far as to tell people in general that Christ has died for your sins?

 

[37818]

God the father only intended to have the Cross of Christ atone as payment in full for those whom he destined and chosen to save by it

Jesus had said, ". . . This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. . . ." His betrayer was included in what He said. You need to fix your understanding.

 

[JesusFan]

How would that be different from Amyraldianism in your view? Also, if you are familiar with the Marrow contraversy, is this like when the Marrow men would say "Christ has died" so they could make a true offer of Christ to everyone but did not want to go so far as to tell people in general that Christ has died for your sins?

So every lost person i hell has had their sin debt also paid in full?