Seed of the Serpent: Owen’s Argument 16a: Various Passages of Scripture

Owen’s Argument 16a: Various Passages of Scripture - Seed of the Serpent

Text

Genesis 3:15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Owen’s Explanation

The woman’s seed is Christ and all the elect and serpent’s seed are the reprobate. God promised enmity between Christ and the reprobate, so Christ (the woman’s seed) didn’t die for the reprobate (the serpents seed), because He is at enmity with them.

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

Refutation

My main concern here is: is this passage specific enough for Owen’s point? I do think that Christ is the seed of the woman and those who will not believe are the serpent’s seed. The crushing underfoot is not in reference to the reprobate, but Satan directly as is evident by the “thy” and “thou”, which refer to the serpent. This understanding is confirmed by Paul’s understanding as well in Romans 16:20, where he says:

And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.

Again, the reference is to Satan directly, not the reprobate (or Satan’s seed).

The reference to Christ’s death is the bruising of the serpents head. This also means the triumph of the Church through Christ. But the point is that the reference to the death of Christ is directly in opposition to Satan, not the reprobate. Again, Christ’s death is in opposition to Satan, not the reprobate.

Another point of disagreement I have with Owen here is unbelievers vs. reprobate. An unbeliever doesn’t believe right now, the reprobate will never believe. Owen of course means those God hasn’t unconditionally chosen for salvation, but that’s beside the point. The point is that Satan’s seed includes everyone, but some leave that group and are adopted into God’s family. This is what Ephesians 2 & Acts 16 indicate.

Ephesians 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Acts 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

So Owen miss-defines the serpents seed. Christ is at enmity with all unbelievers, not just the reprobate. Now obviously that doesn’t mean Christ didn’t die for the elect before they come to faith, but died for them afterwards. In fact, the enmity isn’t really a reference to Christ’s death. Rather, the enmity is between the church and the world.

So in summary, 1) the passage is just not specific enough to suite Owen’s purpose, 2) the reference to Christ’s death applies directly to Satan, not his seed and 3) Owen miss-defines Satan’s seed as the reprobate, rather than any unbeliever.

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