Index to Review of John Owen's the Death of Death in the Death of Christ

Part 1- Review of Owen’s Atonement Theory In this section I review Owen’s view of the Atonement. In particular, I argue that Owen’s conflation of offering and intercession leads him to undermine justification by faith. I caution the reader to not attempt of “fix Owen’s argument for him”, or demand of me explanations of other aspects of passages quoted, or ask “how does this thought fit into an overall atonement theory”. Instead, just focus on understanding what Owen had to say, and if he was correct or not. There will be time explaining the atonement, when I give a positive defense of my own views. Owen’s view of the atonement lead him to unusual interpretations of certain “unlimited atonement” passages, so it’s well worth it to examine what he said about the atonement. Part 2 – Top 10 Reasons to believe Christ Died for all This section discusses the reasons to believe the atonement is unlimited. If Owen made some counter-arguments, they are included and addressed. The reasons are primarily based on exegesis, but some are based on systematic theology or even consistency within the Calvinist position. One key argument is that the Calvinist definition of the word “world” is a special pleading. They give “world” a definition that is alien to the New Testament, existing only to get Calvinists off the hook. Part 3- Refutation of Owen’s arguments against Unlimited Atonement Owen makes 24 arguments against unlimited Atonement, each of which is dealt with in turn. This section surveys a broad range of passages and scriptural arguments. It gives partial but not full explanations of the atonement. Owen’s key arguments are based on justice and satisfaction, which conflict with justification by faith. Part 4- Atonement Theory This section explains the atonement and contrasts an Arminian explanation with Owen’s. Both Owen’s explanation and this one are penal substitution, but whereas Owen’s atonement theory is one step, this one’s two step. The Lamb has been slain and the blood is applied. Part 5 – Are Arminians Semi-Pelagian? This section covers J. I. Packer’s misrepresentation of Arminianism and charge of semi-Pelagianism in his introduction to Owen’s book. The Council of Orange condemned semi-Pelagianism and this section demonstrates Arminius’ compliance with the 25 Cannons of Orange.

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