Owens - Death of Christ - Chapter 7 section 1

Chapter 7 Section 1

Owens Argument #1

P1: intercession is inseparably connected with oblation
P2: Christ’s intercession is made for the elect alone
C1: Therefore, Christ’s oblation was made for the elect alone

Scripture support for P1:

“By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities,” . “He bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors; Isaiah 53:11-12

He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Romans 8:32-34

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/deathofdeath.i.vii.vii.html

Refutation

P1 & P2 are valid, the conclusion does not follow. Just because Christ died for everyone that He intercedes for does not mean He did not die for others. The passages quoted do prove that Christ’s death is the basis for justification, but Owens’s conclusion does not follow.

Owens Argument #2

P3: Christ died with the intent of justifying those He died for
P4: not all are justified
C2: therefore, either Christ’s aim failed, or He did not die for all
P5: Christ’s aim cannot fail
C3: therefore, Christ did not die for all

Scripture support for P3:

“He was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.” Romans 4:25

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/deathofdeath.i.vii.vii.html

Refutation

P3 requires clarification. If Owens means Christ died with the intent of immediately justifying those He died for, or justify them without also interceding for them, P3 is false. The scripture passage does not say immediately, or without intercession and based on passages teaching justification through faith we know that justification is not immediate and that Christ does intercede. But if Owens means that Christ died with the intention of everyone coming to faith and being justified, then P3 is true.

In which case P5 is false. Christ did come to save the world (John 3:17), but not all the world is saved.

Owens Argument #3

P6: Christ’s oblation was for an equivalent number of people as His intercession
P2: Christ’s intercession is made for the elect alone
C1: Therefore, Christ’s oblation was made for the elect alone

Scripture support for P6:

He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Romans 8:32-34

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/deathofdeath.i.vii.vii.html

Refutation

P6 is false. The passage’s scope is limited to people who have been justified. There is no reason to work backward from it and exclude everyone else from Christ's death. No one doubts that Christ’s died for them and that His blood has been applied to them through intercession. The passage does not address those who have not been justified. So while the passage does prove that Christ died for everyone He intercedes for, it does not prove that He died for no one else.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more