Intercession: Owen’s Argument 16e: Various Passages of Scripture

Owen’s Argument 16e: Various Passages of Scripture - Intercession

Text

Romans 8:32-34 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all things? 33Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth; 34who is he that condemneth? It is Christ Jesus that died, yea rather, that was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.


Owen’s Explanation

Owen gives three arguments based on this text. First, God’s greatest act of love is sending His Son to die. So, it’s a small matter to dispense salvation and He would freely give it to those Christ died for. Second, the passage says Christ died for the elect. Third, Christ intercedes for those He died for.

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


Refutation

The passage is talking about the elect so it’s no surprise that God is freely giving all things, justifying and Christ is interceding. But since it’s talking about the elect, we must be careful not to make conclusions about the non-elect.

As for Owen’s first argument, God’s lovingly giving His Son is the basis of the Gospel’s offer of salvation to the world. (John 3:16) It’s important to see God’s love and Christ’s death as establishing a covenant. If one does, they will see that non dispensing salvation isn’t unloving or because Christ didn’t died for someone. Rather, God is just acting in accordance with His covenant.


God has promised to save whosoever believes. Thus, it’s fair to conclude that God’s love and Christ’s death is for everyone, whether or not they believe. Often people misinterpret John 3:16 as God’s foreknowing who will believe. Thus the phase “whosoever believes in Him will not perish” is understood as a list of some people that excludes others. This is not what the passage is saying.

It’s true that some of the “whosoevers” in the world will believe and some won’t. Those that will believe will not perish. Those that won’t will perish. But again that’s not what the passage is saying. Rather it’s giving the formula whosoever believes will not perish. Reading foreknowledge into the passage is a bit fancier than the text allows.

Owen’s second argument is resolved in that the elect are included within the whole world.

As for the third argument, the passage doesn’t say that Christ intercedes for all He died for. It’s true that in this case He both died and intercedes for the same people. But again, the passage is talking about the elect, so of course He would. Christ’s death provides the basis for interceding, but that doesn’t mean Christ always intercedes for those He died for. He died for all, but only intercedes for believers.

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