The Bible doesn’t say Christ died for all men: Owen’s 5th Argument against Universal Atonement

Owen’s Argument 5: The Bible doesn’t say Christ died for all men P1: The bible doesn’t say Christ died for all men P2: The bible is our only source of truth on who Christ died for C1: Therefore, Christ died not for all men http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/deathofdeath.i.ix.ii.html Scriptures Cited by Owen None. Refutation P1 is interesting. There are several passage that say Christ died for all, implying all men. In two case the implication is so strong that the KJV translates them all men & every man. John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. But the word “men” is not in the Greek. Other passages with a similar implication are 1 Tim 2:6 and 2 Corinthians 5:14-15. So while the scriptures might not say P1 in the lingo of P1, that’s what it means. There is one passage that says all men in the Greek. Romans 5:18 says: Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. So P1, which was built on a technicality, is technically false. But while the passages don’t say “all men” but mean it, Romans 5:18 may well have an implied qualification. I don’t think it does. I think it’s saying justification is available for everyone. But a strict reading implies too much. In any case, Owen’s argument is interesting but in the end doesn’t hold up. Owen is relying on there being only one way to communicate Christ’s death for everyone. Saying Christ died for all (in the right context), or the world, or the whole world works just fine. For more, see reason 2 of the top ten reasons Christ died for all, where I go over 2 Tim 2:6 in detail. http://danchapa.blogspot.com/2007/12/2-all-means-all.html

Comments

The Seeking Disciple said…
Most excellent post. I believe if there is one link in the five points of Calvinism that is easiest to defeat it is their view of the atonement. The Scriptures are so packed against it that even Calvinist have a hard time working out a doctrine agianst it.

John MacArthur, for example, takes his limited atonement view to the Scriptures and therefore does what he so often preaches against and that is he reads into the text his own doctrine despite the clear reading of the text (for example see his notes on 1 John 2:1-2).
January 7, 2008 at 1:50 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Yep, I agree. Many "less strict" Calvinists don't hold to LA and become 4 point Calvinists. But the strict ones like to point to Owen, so that's why I am going through his work inch by inch.

God be with you,
Dan
January 7, 2008 at 6:25 PM
The Seeking Disciple said…
I am going to use your analysis of Romans 9-11 on my blog and give you credit if that is okay.
January 8, 2008 at 6:59 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Yes I would be honored if you would.

By the way, just so you are aware, that paper is about 5 years old. I have an upcoming debate with Turretinfan on Romans 9-11 and as part of the process, I plan on updating (hopefully improving) the paper. But the basics haven't changed.

God be with you,
Dan
January 8, 2008 at 7:40 PM
Abby said…
I was just wondering, if you disagree with Limited Atonement, how you would go about explaining passages such as Romans 9:11-13 (which reads, "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." and happens to be referencing Malachi 1:2,3 which reads "I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob,And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness."), Acts 13:48 ("and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed"), ephesians 1:9-11 ("being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things..."), Romans 8:28,29 ("For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."), or John 10:26,27("because ye are not of my sheep...")? And then in connection with these passages and for the sake of debate, wouldn't "all men", "every man", etc simply refer then to all believers, all levels of society (kings and servants, bondman and free, etc), the Creation in general, or all men as coming from all races and parts of the world? depending on the context?
December 5, 2011 at 5:15 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Hi Abby,

Wow that's a lot to cover! I have blogged on many of these passages in the past so probably the best thing to do would be to direct you to few past posts.

Romans 9:

http://www.arminianchronicles.com/2010/01/index-to-posts-on-romans-9-11.html

John 10:26:

http://www.arminianchronicles.com/2009/05/sheepkeeper.html

Acts 13:48:

http://www.arminianchronicles.com/2009/07/wesley-on-acts-1348.html

Hopefully those are enough to get started as a general approach. If you have more specific questions, please let me know.

As for all men, well, that needs to be examined case by case. All believers certainly is an option if the context calls for it. I am not convinced "all levels of society is valid". That either refers to the catigory itself (i.e. greenness) or all individuals who make up the catigory (i.e. all green people). If it's the green people, then unlimited atonement is still established (there are non-elect of every kind). If it's the catigory, well, I don't think Christ died for the abstract catigory the color green. He died for people.

God be with you,
Dan
December 6, 2011 at 9:04 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