Where We Have Been/What’s Upcoming

Having finished the review of Owen’s objections to unlimited atonement I wanted to briefly review where we have been and go over, God willing, where we are going. Where We Have Been. We started with a Review of Owen’s understanding of the atonement. This shows Owen’s primary misunderstanding in Books 1 & 2 of the Death of Death in the Death of Christ, relating to the differences between Christ’s death and His intercession. Then we moved to the top 10 reasons to believe Christ died for all. Owen’s objections to these reasons, found in Book 4, were discussed as well. Included within the top 10 was a detailed analysis of every New Testament usage of the word world, to discover the right sense in which Christ died for the world. Recently, we just finished reviewing Owen’s arguments against unlimited atonement. This step-by-step review of Owen’s objections to unlimited atonement covers Book 3. What’s Upcoming I plan on taking a break from the topic for little bit, while I focus on my upcoming debate with Turretinfan on Romans 9-11. Lord willing, after I have had a chance to re-write my analysis of those chapters, I will return to the atonement. In reviewing Owen’s understanding of the atonement, I pointed out Owen’s primary problem, namely intercession. Although we went over what was wrong with Owen’s view, we didn’t go over the correct view of the atonement. Actually, there’s a great deal in Owen’s books 1 & 2 that I agree with. Most of the effectiveness and fruits of Christ’s death that Owen’s sees related to Christ’s death, I see as related to the application of Christ’s blood to the believer. But we need to cover how this works, so I plan on covering a few atonement theories. In the process, I plan on making a few comments on Packer’s introduction to Owen’s the Death of Death in the Death of Christ. As I said, I plan on talking a break from the atonement while I prepare for my Romans 9-11 debate, but Lord willing, I will be able to post a brief teaser on atonement theories tomorrow evening.

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

Hodge on Ephesians 1:17-19

Hodge argues for effectual calling based on Ephesians 1:17-19. He claims that the passage teaches the regeneration is monergistic , so it proves God's call is effectual. Here's the passage: Ephesians 1:17-19 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, 18 the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power. Hodge has several problems. First, the passage teaches sanctification, not regeneration. It's dealing with living the Christian life and growing in grace, not conversion. Second, even if the passage were teaching that regeneration is monergistic , this wouldn't prove that God's call is effectual. I agree regeneration, strictly defi
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