Reconciliation: Owen’s 12th Argument against Unlimted Atonement

Owen’s Argument 12: Reconciliation


P1: Those who are reconciled are at peace with God and no longer under
P2: Christ, by His death, reconciled all for whom He died
P3: Some remain under wrath
C1: Therefore, Christ didn’t die for all


http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/deathofdeath.i.ix.v.html


Scriptures Cited by Owen

“when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son,” Rom. v. 10.
“enemies he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death,” Col. i. 21, 22
2 Corinthians 5:18-19


Refutation

P2 is false. Paul specifically pleads for those for whom Christ died to be reconciled to God. A key text on reconciliation is 2 Corinthians 5:18-6:2:

18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
20Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
1We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.
2(For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)


Five Uses of Reconciliation in 2 Corinthians 5

The word reconciliation is used five times in this passages (more than any other passage).
The first usage speaks of reconciliation in the past tense. Paul & Timothy (i.e. “us” ) had been reconciled. The second usage was in the phrase “ministry of reconciliation“. Here, reconcile is in a noun form. This is of course talking about Paul and Timothy’s mission to spread the Gospel, so that others could, like them, become reconciled to God. This implies that others who were not yet reconciled, could become reconciled. The third reference was that “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself“. Here reconciling is a present participle. This is the controversial usage, so we will come back to it. For now, we will just note that it’s not spoken of as a completed action. The fourth usage, “the word of reconciliation“, is similar to the second usage, and carries the same implication. Namely, through the Gospel, some that are not now reconciled, will become reconciled. The fifth and final usage, “be ye reconciled to God” is an imperative. Paul is commanding His audience to be reconciled. This of course entails that they were not yet reconciled, but should be.

An Additional Argument by Owen on 2 Corinthians 5


Owen makes an argument supporting P2 regarding verse 19, claiming that reconciliation consists of non-imputation of sins. Since non-imputation of sins is equivalent to justification, all those spoken of in verse 19 are justified. Therefore, “world” cannot mean everyone, but rather means the elect. Let’s keep this argument in view as we proceed.

The Ways of Explaining 2 Corinthians 5 from a Unlimited Atonement Perspective


The third usage of reconciliation (i.e. God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself) has been explained in three different ways by those holding to unlimited atonement. The first view is that God is reconciled to us, be we are not yet reconciled to God. The second view is that we are partially reconciled. The third view is that it was God’s intention to reconcile us.
The first view, in my opinion, has a problem. The passage talks about us being reconciled to God, not God to us.


The second view of partial reconciliation is typically explained in one of three ways. Some say God “bought us time” to repent. Others say God forgives original sin only. Still others say God forgives all sins, but unbelief. I won’t quickly dismiss any of these views, but I am not entirely convinced by them.


I think what the passage is saying is that God intended reconciliation. God intended reconciliation for the world and through Christ made reconciliation possible for all. But He didn’t reconcile all at 33 AD. This view fits best with the other usages which indicate reconciliation is yet future for some people. The non-imputation of sins in verse 19 is to be understood of those who are actually reconciled: those who obey the apostles command to be reconciled to God and who do not receive the grace of God in vain. The “their” in the clause “not imputing their trespasses unto them” could be a reference back to “world”, but doesn’t have to be. It doesn’t match “world” in gender and number as pronouns typically do. This is likely why the NET Bible translates the clause “people’s trespasses against them”. It leaves enough room for an understanding of non-imputation of sin just for those who are reconciled.

So the "God intended reconciliation" option works best. It fits the context best in three ways: 1) the phrase "not receiving the grace of God in vain" implies that some whom God is reconciling, don't end up reconciled and 2) the command to be reconciled implies that reconciliation is not yet completed and finally 3) the usage of "world" shows all people to be undergoing reconciliation.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

Scripture and the Common Man