Faith is a Gift: Owen’s Argument 3 against Unlimited Atonement

Owen’s Argument 3: Faith is a Gift


P1: Salvation is conditional on faith
P2: Christ, through His death provides the condition of faith
P3: Man cannot believe on his own
P4: Not all believe
C1: Therefore, Christ died not for all


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


Scriptures Cited by Owen



None.


Refutation


The premises are true but the conclusion doesn’t follow. Man can’t believe on his own, but with God’s help he is enabled to believe. That doesn’t mean man has to believe. Gifts, like God’s gift of faith, can either be accepted or rejected.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Dan,

I got this question on today's post. Would you like to answer it? If so, I'll refer Magnus to your blog.

Magnus said . . .

Billy,

I enjoy your site here because you post the very words of Arminius and give it to us to try and make sense of it.

Regarding this series in particular, I am struck with reading it again on your site here. I have read this many times over the past months and today something struck me that I was hoping you could give me your view on. When he talks of the unregenerate man having the law written in his heart I take it that he is referencing Romans 2:15 which lines up with what he wrote, but I started thinking about the law written on hearts of believers and if that is different? I mean we are told in Jer. 31:33 that God would write his law in our hearts and we see the same thing again in Hebrews 8:10; now, what came to my mind when reading Arminius again tonight is are these two things the same? Would the law that is written on the unregenerate heart be the same as the law that is written on a regenerate heart?

At first I would think of course they are the same because God’s law does not change, but then I kept thinking on it and my little mind would not let it go because it would seem that if it is the same then there should be no need for God to write it again on the hearts of believers. I mean if we all have the law written on our hearts even if we do not believe and have faith in Jesus then why tell us that He will write His law in the hearts of new believers again? That does not make much sense to me so maybe they are different, maybe the law on an unregenerate heart is/has a different meaning then the law written on a regenerate heart.

I wonder what you think of this; perhaps this is nothing more than me trying to make something out of nothing:)

No matter what, I always enjoy when I read something and each time get something new out of it and for that I thank you for putting this forward again to my mind.

Magnus
January 5, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Godismyjudge said…
Hi Billy,

That's a good question on Magnus's part...

My first thought is that based on the differences in the context of Heb 8 & Rom 2, the expression "law written on hearts" means something a little different. In the case of Romans 2, I think Paul is talking about knowledge of right and wrong. In the case of Hebrews 8, it's talking about God's providing the grace needed to keep the laws He has given.

But I admit I am not sure on this one. I don't recall Arminius addressing this question.

God be with you,
Dan
January 5, 2008 at 2:04 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