The “Justice Pickle”: Owen’s 6th Argument against Unlimited Atonement

Owen’s Argument 6: The “Justice Pickle” I owe the title “Justice Pickle” to Theojunkie. This argument is probably Owen’s most popular. P1: If Christ was punished in someone’s place, they don’t have to be punished P2: Some will be punished for their sins C1: Therefore, Christ wasn’t punished for their sins P3: Christ’s death was a penal substitution for those for whom He died C2: Therefore, Christ didn’t die for all http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/deathofdeath.i.ix.iii.html Scriptures Cited by Owen Rom. v. 6–8, “For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Gal. iii. 13, “He was made a curse for us.” 2 Cor. v. 21, “He hath made him to be sin for us.” Isaiah 53:5-6 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. 6All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Jehovah hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. Refutation P3 is false. Christ’s death can be a penal substitute for all, because Christ died on behalf of all and His death will be a penal substitute for those who believe. Thus, Christ’s death is sufficient for all, but efficient for the elect. If P3 is true, we cannot be justified by faith. It’s a matter of both timing and conditionality. If P3 is true, and unlimited atonement is true all were saved at 33 AD, weather they believe or not. If P3 is true, and limited atonement is true, the elect are saved at 33 AD weather they believe or not, and the no-elect are lost weather they believe or not. Thus justification by faith goes poof. This is why Arminians see Christ’s work in two parts. He died for (on behalf of) all, but He intercedes for believers. His intercession is His requesting the Father to accept His death as a penal substitute. His death can be a substitute for all, but will be a substitute for only believers. It’s this second aspect that the passages above are talking about. More on this topic in my review of Owen’s introduction and distinction between Christ’s offering and intercession: http://danchapa.blogspot.com/search/label/H.3.a%20Death%20of%20Death%20in%20the%20Death%20of%20Christ

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