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

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