Christ’s Merit: Owen’s 14th Argument against Unlimited Atonement

Owen’s Argument 14: Christ’s Merit P1: Christ’s death merited release from the sin debt for those He died for P2: Not all are released from their sin debt C1: Therefore, Christ didn’t die for all http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/deathofdeath.i.ix.x.html Scriptures Cited by Owen Isaiah 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. Explanation of Christ’s Merit Christ’s merit isn’t a biblical term, nor is it one typically used by evangelicals. So it might be helpful to go over what Owen means here. Merited basically means paid for or the value given in exhange for something. Owen uses it as a direct corollary to redemption. Merit is what Christ uses to pay for those whom He redeems. Refutation P1 is false. The value of Christ’s death is infinite. So Christ’s death can redeem all, but His death isn’t used “transitionally” to redeem all. Owen only sees the transactional aspect and doesn’t see the value that can be used to redeem all. Brief Digression on Sufficiency We covered sufficiency in the 7th Argument as to why Christ died for all. http://danchapa.blogspot.com/2007/11/7-sufficient-for-all-efficient-for.html This is worth repeating here, because most Calvinist’s would agree with the refutation above. I wonder if today’s Calvinists would posit the argument Owen does here. In can case, Calvinists see the value of Christ’s death as infinite and would not think Christ had to bleed more to save more people. What they don’t think is that Christ’s sacrifice (which was of infinite value) was offered for all. It could have been offered for more because of it’s infinite value, but it wasn’t. Thus, for them, the sufficiency of Christ death means Christ could have saved everyone. This is not normally how people talk about sufficiency. What Arminians mean by Christ’s death being sufficient for all is that what Christ actually did on the cross can save the whole world. The result of the Calvinist explanation above is that Christ cannot save the reprobate. Normally, people would say Christ’s inability to save means what He did was insufficient. I could have taken French in college, but instead I took Spanish. Today, I can’t speak French. I shouldn’t go around saying I can speak French, based only on the fact that in the past I could have studied French. Normally people don’t say that. Likewise, Calvinist’s shouldn’t say that Christ can save the whole world. Contrary to Mathew 22, the dinner hasn’t been prepared, all things are not ready, contrary to Isaiah 59:1 the Lord’s hand has been shortened, that it cannot save and contrary to Romans 10:9 if you confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you still might not be saved.