Understanding John Owen's argument.

[JesusFan]

First. Thanks for the kind words. I have to say that your way of saying things is honestly difficult for me to follow. I mean for example in the above paragraph you say you understand salvation is all about all the nouns God gives to man that do what they do when employed by those to whom they're given. I freely admit that it may be nothing more than my lack of education and I will not be offended if you agree with me but I find that sentence to be unintelligible. I also think that in the vast tragedy of human existence and our history of utter failure to live lives pleasing to God as chronicled in the Bible and secular history it may be the most over simplified and reductionist statement I have ever heard anyone make. Or maybe I didn't understand what you were saying.

Think that our friend is stating to us that the salvation done for us by God means that like in Romans 8, from start to finish if fully of the lord, and we really contribute nothing in the salvation process

 

[JesusFan]

I will totally concede anything you say about new testament translation. I simply do not know much about it. But your intense preoccupation with having to have a noun in order to do a verb is a prime example of how we all tend to way over emphasize our own professional discipline. Surgeons view everything as requiring surgery, pharmacists say "there's medicine for that", leftists view everything as oppression and I guess Philologists view everything in terms of the misuse of nouns and verbs. I don't buy your premise that all the problems of the church would go away if we simply had a proper understanding of grammar.

You used an example of faith and believing. You actually make it too simple. How is faith a gift? Can a noun which when exercised is a verb be given? Is it given? Or is the human will changed so that now a person will believe. Is faith in a simple fact like the apple is red the same in my mind as faith that will save me from eternal damnation? Is faith involved in believing something the same as "the faith". Is obedience or the intention of future obedience part of saving faith? Is faith the same as saving faith. Is faith in James the same as faith in Ephesians? Why does Jonathan Edwards in his chapter on faith have about 80 paragraphs of explanation? These are examples of why important things like this cannot be reduced to nouns and verbs. That doesn't even scratch the surface.

This thread, which I didn't start, is about Owen's work "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ". I've been through it once and will not try it again. But once again, it cannot be reduced to issues of grammar. Who was Owen writing this to. What were his opponents views and what were they trying to do in the church? Was politics involved? To what extent was he under pressure - in other words what would happen to him if he lost? And then there is the theology itself.

The other reason I don't buy the theory that all the problems of the church can be resolved by better linguistic understanding is that most of the problems of the church involve deliberate apostacy and going against very obvious imperatives in scripture - not subtle theological differences.

Now at first I just blew you off as a crank. But not only are you interesting to talk to but apparently you are teaching somewhere and I have come to respect what goes on at that level, especially if a seminary is involved. It will make a difference, someday. And eventually we will start seeing some form of this influence at the local church level. I'm just trying to figure out what to think of it.

Much of the theological problems within the local churches come form a basic disbelief in the full infallibility of the Bible, and a denial of basic biblcal doctrines!

 

[JesusFan]

If you’d like to stop talking past each other and make a post lengthy enough to address the topic, I can engage further with you whether we agree or not. If you won’t do those things, then I don’t guess we’ll be able to converse much. Drive-by conceptual declarations don’t accomplish anything, and I’m beyond sick of the Calvinist-Arminian false-dichotomy as the alleged battlefield.

You are a fellow Calvinist yourself, correct ?

 

[37818]

Much of the theological problems within the local churches come form a basic disbelief in the full infallibility of the Bible, and a denial of basic biblcal doctrines!

The worst part is, what is being disbelieved is not being understood correctly. The only one any of us can fully deal with is ourselves.

Believing what is not actually true does not make it true. Denying what the word of God actually says and so means does not make the true meaning not true.

 

[JesusFan]

The worst part is, what is being disbelieved is not being understood correctly. The only one any of us can fully deal with is ourselves.

Believing what is not actually true does not make it true. Denying what the word of God actually says and so means does not make the true meaning not true.

Many in churches are postmodern in their thinking, and even standard core doctrines are being set aside today!

 

[37818]

Many in churches are postmodern in their thinking, and even standard core doctrines are being set aside today!

2 John 1:9, ". . . Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. . . ."

1 John 5:1, ". . . Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God . . . ."

Jude 1:3, ". . . Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. . . ."

 

[CONSPICILLUM]

You are a fellow Calvinist yourself, correct ?

My history on Soteriology: Raised “OSAS Arminian”. Became Infralapsarian Calvinist. Retreated to Amyraldist. Embraced Supralapsarian Calvinist. Bailed on anything related to Reformed doctrine. Left formal Church Ministry and Denominationalism for Para-church Ministry. Despised shallow Non-Denominational doctrine. Despised my own Theological Illiteracy. Began 20+ year study of Biblical Languages and Theology. Returned to Denominationalism. Embraced Biblical Monergism from the Lutheran perspective devoid of Ordo Salutis and Limited Atonement.

 

[Aaron]

My history on Soteriology: Raised “OSAS Arminian”. Became Infralapsarian Calvinist. Retreated to Amyraldist. Embraced Supralapsarian Calvinist. Bailed on anything related to Reformed doctrine. Left formal Church Ministry and Denominationalism for Para-church Ministry. Despised shallow Non-Denominational doctrine. Despised my own Theological Illiteracy. Began 20+ year study of Biblical Languages and Theology. Returned to Denominationalism. Embraced Biblical Monergism from the Lutheran perspective devoid of Ordo Salutis and Limited Atonement.

Sounds like you learned a lot of labels. Did you learn of Jesus?

 

[JesusFan]

My history on Soteriology: Raised “OSAS Arminian”. Became Infralapsarian Calvinist. Retreated to Amyraldist. Embraced Supralapsarian Calvinist. Bailed on anything related to Reformed doctrine. Left formal Church Ministry and Denominationalism for Para-church Ministry. Despised shallow Non-Denominational doctrine. Despised my own Theological Illiteracy. Began 20+ year study of Biblical Languages and Theology. Returned to Denominationalism. Embraced Biblical Monergism from the Lutheran perspective devoid of Ordo Salutis and Limited Atonement.

Do you agree with Baptismal regeneration as they would hold to?

 

[tyndale1946]

Do you agree with Baptismal regeneration as they would hold to?

Pardon me for butting in but I heard an Old Line/Old School (Hardshell) Sovereign Grace Baptist preacher who is now with the Lord says this... If the candidate for baptism ISN'T REGENRATED before the are immersed in the baptismal waters, they go in a dry devil and come out a wet one... Brother Glen

From one old timer to another, hello Aaron

 

[Aaron]

From one old timer to another, hello Aaron

Hey.

 

[CONSPICILLUM]

Sounds like you learned a lot of labels. Did you learn of Jesus?

If I said this to you, you’d likely take it to be quite condescending and adversarially accusational. I see this forum is no different than other venues in that regard. This comment/question frames everything that is wrong with modern Christendom. But please continue thinking highly of yourself and lowly of others, especially soteriologially.

 

[Aaron]

If I said this to you, you’d likely take it to be quite condescending and adversarially accusational. I see this forum is no different than other venues in that regard. This comment/question frames everything that is wrong with modern Christendom. But please continue thinking highly of yourself and lowly of others, especially soteriologially.

Wow, there's lots o'big wurds there. We be but humble plowboys. Was that a yes or a no?

 

[CONSPICILLUM]

Wow, there's lots o'big wurds there. We be but humble plowboys. Was that a yes or a no?

You’re not humble at all, my good sir. Bye.

 

[Aaron]

You’re not humble at all, my good sir. Bye.

And you're not pompous at all.

 

[akshaytees8]

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".

 

[37818]

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".

A few facts. 1) The word of God does not teach any kind of universalism. 2) Jesus gave His soul to save His sheep. 3) Jesus included lost Judas in His new covenant, Luke 22:20-21. ". . . in my blood, which is shed for you. . . ." And Judas was never saved.