Done with Owen, Edwards Next

Whelp, that wraps up the series on John Owen’s book, the Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Wow, 46 posts! That’s quite a journey. This has been much more in-depth than I anticipated. But it has also been more rewarding than I thought as well.

I chose Owen, because Calvinists often cite Owen’s book as the best out there on Limited Atonement. Also, older Calvinist theologians tend to be heavyweights at Polemics, which is what interests me. I wanted to highlight some of the problems with Owen’s arguments and present an alternative to his view that I think is more faithful to scripture. If anyone thinks I made mistakes in analyzing Owen’s arguments, or thinks they can provide stronger arguments than Owen, I welcome comments.

I will be offline for about a week or so. After that, God willing, I plan on starting reviewing another classic Calvinist work: Jonathan Edwards’ The Freedom of the Will.
If anyone wonders why I am blogging through Calvinist books, here are two quotes that I think will help explain.

“So by the friction of comparison we may strike a spark which will illuminate [a topic] for us, and once we see it clearly we can fix it firmly in our own minds.” - Plato

“If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.” – Isaac Newton

Comments

Jnorm said…
You gave some good rejoinders on Owen. They do mention that book alot.




JNORM888
March 17, 2008 at 2:11 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

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