Owen's Death of Christ- Chapter 7 Section 5

Owen's Argument - Chapter 7 Section 5

P1: In John 17 Christ both offered and interceded
P2: Christ intercedes for the elect alone
C1: therefore, Christ offered for the elect alone

Scripture quoted in support of P1:

I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. (John 17:4)

And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. (1 Corinthians 15:17)

Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. (Hebrews 9:12)

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

Refutation

P1 & P2 are true but the conclusion does not follow. Just because Christ offered for everyone He intercedes for does not mean He intercedes for everyone He offers for. Christ's offering is the basis for His intercession, so of course Christ talks about both in John 17.

Comments

DonaldH said…
If this is his reasoning then he committed a part to whole fallacy. Owen automatically assumed his conclusion.

These were the things that led me out of calvinism, two years ago. The main thing was the Appeal to Fear: You are not quite biblical if you are not a "calvinist."

Although, I could never embrace limited atonement. For the sake of my own peace of mind.

However, thanks Dan, for refuting the Owenic arguments.

I would also like to hear more of our brethren pull out the truth that many of these concepts didn't originate with Calvin, but actually with Beza, and Owen. Or should I just bring that up on the SEA forum?

Thanks man.
April 1, 2011 at 10:47 AM
Godismyjudge said…
Yes, some C's appeal to fear either of being not fully biblical or worse. Reminds me of the saying when Arminius debated Gomorus before the state: 'I would rather appear before God's judgment with Arminius' theology than with Gomorus' charity.'

I think the distance between Calvin and later Calvinists is an interesting topic, and a good one for the forum. My take is that all the basics of Calvinism were present in Calvin, but in a less clear way than you can find in later Calvinists. Still, I think Calvin was a determinist and he held to limited atonement and he seems to hold to supra-lapsarianism and double predestination. Still, perhaps he was inconsistent and less than clear on these topics at times.

God be with you,
Dan
April 1, 2011 at 2:47 PM
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