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

John Owen - Death of Death in the Death of Christ

For those who may have suffered through my review of John Owen's classic work the Death of Death in the Death of Christ, I have wonderful news. You get to do it all over again!!! I compiled it into 5 articles available here . I also added a link on the left side of my blog. I also now have a left side of my blog. :-) God be with you, Dan
Read more

The Equivocation of Regeneration

In the order of salvation, which comes first, faith or regeneration? Before we can answer that, don't we first need to understand what regeneration is? In this post I plan on contrasting Hodge's view with Arminius'. Hopefully, in the process we can clarify the issue of monergism vs. synergism. Hodge’s Order of Salvation Common Grace – a “moral suasion” that brings good works, but is insufficient to enable justifying faith Regeneration – God’s supernatural and immediate change of a person’s nature Vocation – same Gospel as the one in common grace, but it’s effectual on the changed man. Conversion – faith and repentance “first conscious exercise of the renewed soul” Justification Two Definitions of Regeneration Hodges provides two alternative definitions of regeneration. Sometimes regeneration means just the imparting of life, other times it means the whole process including the things coming before and after the imparting of life. 1 Hodge says these two difference sense
Read more