A common question that Calvinists pose to the Arminian is "If Jesus died for all, then why aren't all saved?" John Owen popularised this argument with his "triple dilemma" or "triple choice" where he said [paraphrased] that "Jesus died for either all sins of all men, all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men."
Some non-Calvinists (in taking Owens third choice) have tried to defend their view by saying that Jesus died for all sins of all men, except for the sin of [continual] unbelief. While I respect their attempts to reconcile the facts that Jesus died for all, and that not all will be saved, I reject way in which they try to harmonise theses two truths.
Universalists (in taking Owens first choice) generally appeal to the same passages that Arminians appeal to in support of unlimited atonement. They however, like the Calvinist make the mistake of thinking that not having all saved and having atonement for all poses some sort of contradiction.
Calvinists (in taking Owens second choice) believe that Jesus died for all the sins of some men. In doing so they jump through many hoops to avoid the implications of the countless passages that Jesus died for everyone, and those passages which say God would rather that those who perish would repent. At the same time they point to verses which say Jesus died for "his people" or "his sheep" etc. (Note that these verses don't exclude the rest of the world. Their logic here is flawed, and is akin to me saying that "I love my mother" and then deducing that I don't love anyone else.)
Arminians, including myself (and also Amyraldians) argue that the atonement is provisional. That is, Jesus died for all, but the benefits of the atonement are applied to those who are in Christ. In fact some Calvinists now accept that the atonement is provisional (although say it is only provided for the elect.) In doing so these Calvinists concede that unlimited atonement doesn't lead to universalism.
But those Calvinists who follow Owen and refuse to admit that the atonement is provisional (whether for all or just the elect) walk into a problem of their own. If they deny that the benefits of the atonement are applied only once a person exercises saving faith (Such Calvinists typically claim "You believe God is your potential saviour, where I believe Jesus actually saved me at the cross.") then they must believe that they were then never under God's wrath (as opposed to scripture e.g. Ephesians 2:1-3). They must believe that they were born saved (as there is apparently nothing remaining that is required to make them a beneficiary of the atonement). So then to these people, faith cannot be the means by which they access grace (Romans 5:1-2), but rather a revelation that they are already saved!
Daniel Nebauer
Sunday, 28 February 2010
19 comments:
Read Before Commenting
Though I will try, I can't promise that I will always be able to, or have the time to respond to your comments. You are free to disagree with me, but any inappropriate comments will be removed. Minor tangents are okay, but try not to stray from the subject of the post. Links to inappropriate material will be deleted immediately.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good post, bro. Glad to see you're still posting when able.
ReplyDeleteWell said.
ReplyDeleteThanks brothers :)
ReplyDeleteDaniel,
ReplyDeleteThis is a great post. I have come across John Owen's ridiculous argument before and I am stunned by the sheer folly of it! From someone like Owen you would expect better and yet many Calvinists just parrot his argument as if has no refutation. As you say, they must believe that they were born saved. This argument is not based on inductive, scriptural logic but Greek/Aristotle and deductive logic. It is the same tired logic "if God can do what is impossible, can he create a rock bigger than himself, if not he cannot he cannot do the impossible".
You followed Owen's logic to it's logical end and demonstrated the aburdity of his position.
Unfortunately, the arguments made against Owen and Calvinism (particularly Limited Atonement) here are mischaracterized in the extreme. While defending Owen's arguments in Death of Death (I would encourage you to read the whole thing!) may prove profitable at some point, it seems more beneficial to ask two questions of the author: 1)What did God intend by the Cross? To achieve salvation or to make salvation possible? The Bible says the former, while I believe Arminians would have to side with the latter. 2) If Christ died to save every person, did He then fail? Because Job 42:2 says God can never fail.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, brothers, enjoy the rest of your conversation! I'd hate to interrupt. Just thought I'd point out a few flaws in the argument. Oh and one final question... All of Owen's writings are saturated with Christ, which makes me curious as to why you dislike him so much? Just food for thought. God Bless!
Hello Zach,
ReplyDeleteYou said... "1)What did God intend by the Cross? To achieve salvation or to make salvation possible? The Bible says the former, while I believe Arminians would have to side with the latter."
I'm afraid that this is a mischaracterization of the Arminian position. Jesus' death achieves salvation for all those who are united with him through faith. If you want to argue it merely makes salvation possible, the Calvinists is left with the same problem. Even the Calvinist has to admit that the atonement doesn't achieve salvation on it's own. Salvation is not achieved apart from faith. Even the Calvinist has to admit that there are people who Jesus died for who are not saved - because Ephesians 2:1-3 makes it clear they are still under God's wrath before they have faith.
you said... "2) If Christ died to save every person, did He then fail? Because Job 42:2 says God can never fail."
No he did not fail. He only "fails" if you begin with the Calvinist assumption that His purpose was to irresistibly save all those He died for. I'd argue that this is not what the bible says.
you said..."All of Owen's writings are saturated with Christ, which makes me curious as to why you dislike him so much?"
I don't know what gave you the impression I dislike owen. I merely disagree with him on this issue.
Thanks for dropping by.
Peace.
Well I am not sure that any Calvinist would maintain that Christ died for some who are not saved. It is true that Christ's death is not immediately applied to those for whom He died, but this does not mean it did not achieve their salvation. All for whom Christ died will be saved. That Ephesians 2:1-3 states that they were still under the wrath of God before they had faith I agree with, but I do not think it proves your point. It would, if faith were an act of man. But faith is the gift of God as Romans 9 and Philippians 1:29 both teach. When the Calvinist says that the atonement achieved salvation, it is included that the atonement purchased the faith of the elect. Again, Phil. 1:29. But I don't believe in proof texts, so I would just say that the entire book of Hebrews very clearly teaches that we are saved because of what Christ did for us on the Cross. I think to separate faith from what Christ did on the Cross is to elevate faith to a position only God occupies, namely as Saviour.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure what you believe Christ died for if not to save the people He died for. But even so, that He did is the proclamation the Angel of the Lord says to Mary in Matthew 1:21. In addition, the main words the Bible uses for what Christ did on the Cross (ransom, redemption, ect.) clearly denote a final and complete transaction in the original Greek.
Glad to hear you don't dislike Owen, and again if you haven't, I would encourage you to read Death of Death. He can explain this much better than I can.
Blessings
Zack,
ReplyDeleteyou said: "It would, if faith were an act of man. But faith is the gift of God as Romans 9 and Philippians 1:29 both teach. When the Calvinist says that the atonement achieved salvation, it is included that the atonement purchased the faith of the elect. Again, Phil. 1:29."
I'm sure we have very different interpretations of Romans 9, but I would rather keep this on track. If you would like to investigate the Arminian view further I would recommend this post on Romans 9: http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/286
Faith is an act of man, (even Calvinists have to admit this much, as it is not God believing for us).
If When you say faith is a gift of God (meaning man can't believe on his own) then I wholeheartedly agree. The question is whether or not this gift is irrestistible.
Now, even if you think you could argue that it is irresistible (It certainly doesn't say this in Phil, 1:29, and I'd contend the bible actually tells us it is resistible) the question is of internal consistancy.
You can't evaluate the internal consistancy of Arminianism with Calvinistic assumptions (i.e irresistible grace). Hence, Unlimited atonement would only lead to universalism with this assumption (which I believe to be unbiblical).
As for the Greek (ransom, redemption ect.) I'm not a greek scholar, and there would be better Arminian representatives than myself here. But even so, just doing a quick bible search under those words, and the results you get are things like "ransom for", (etc.) instead of "has ransomed", - unless it is speaking of those who are believers (and in the case of believers I would agree the transaction is complete).
Peace
Also, if the transaction were complete at the cross, then they would not be under God's wrath prior to faith as is written in Eph 2:1-3
ReplyDeleteBrother Daniel,
ReplyDeleteI just want to thank you for such clear yet strong writing. The fact that you are able to back-up and support your statements scripturally makes your reading all the more enjoyable. I have been a Calvinist all my life and recently (4 years ago) joined an Arminian church (Church of God/Anderson) here in Redding, CA. Four years later, and I am now the pastor of that same church and I plan on using your blog as resource material for my sermons and obviously for continuing education. Please keep on writing and preaching the truth. These TULIP boys are a royal pain sometimes but we still have to remember that we are the Body of Christ. It's our job to educate them. Thanks again and God bless you!
-Pastor Sung Kim
Cornerstone Community Church
Redding, CA
www.ReddingCornerstone.org
Pastor Sung,
ReplyDeleteThankyou for your kind words. If you are in need of more Arminian resources I would suggest the Society of Evangelical Arminians. I am just one of the many members of the society. There are some very well learned individuals that contribute very well thought out and biblical insights. The website is http://www.evangelicalarminians.org/
May God bless you in your ministry!
Hey Dan. As I've been reading Death of Death I've come back to read your blog again and I just wanted to hear you answer to a question that Owen poses in Death of Death. To quote from p61-61
ReplyDelete" If[Christ died for the sins of all men]why are not all freed from the punishment of their sins? You will say 'Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.' But this unbelief, is it sin, or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not? If so then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking in the fruit of his death? If he did not, then did he not die for all sins?"
Thoughts?
Mike, this is basically the question that this post addresses.
ReplyDeleteThe unbeliever isn’t just punished for the sin of unbelief, but all his sins. Why? Because the benefits of the atonement (specifically Salvation), are only applied to those who are united with Christ through faith.
Let me ask you this; does the atonement save apart from faith? If you answer “yes”, then you were saved prior to having faith (because then faith wasn’t required) – which is completely unscriptural.
It comes down to the means of salvation that God has ordained which is all throughout the bible. Salvation is by GRACE, through FAITH. Without faith, you don’t receive the benefits of the atonement; not for the sin of unbelief, and not for any other sins.
So yes Jesus died for all sins. So why should the sin of unbelief “hinder them more than their other sins for which he died”? The problem isn’t that unbelief is a sin. The problem is that faith is the very means by which we receive grace. Or put simply, without faith, you cannot receive grace.
Thanks for the response Dan.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your question;
"Let me ask you this; does the atonement save apart from faith?"
My answer is no we must have faith. Defining faith as my genuine response to Christ the saviour which has its genesis in the gracious regenerating power of God.
Just to get some clarity over terms. You say;
"Without faith, you don’t receive the benefits of the atonement; not for the sin of unbelief, and not for any other sins."
Would you say that faith and belief are different in content or are they two words for the same thing? I feel like you're saying that their different and therefore it's faith or lack of faith which determines union with Christ, not belief or unbelief. Could unbelief be forgiven if i have faith?
Mike,
ReplyDeleteYes I basically agree with your definition of faith (with perhaps a few nuances that are not core to the issue at hand). There may also be some slight differences in the usage of the words “belief” and “faith” by different biblical authors. (For example the word “believes” used in John 3:16 would seem to imply more than simple head knowledge, seeing that it leads to Salvation, in contrast to the word “believe” in James 2:19).
“Would you say that faith and belief are different in content or are they two words for the same thing? I feel like you're saying that their different and therefore it's faith or lack of faith which determines union with Christ, not belief or unbelief. Could unbelief be forgiven if i have faith?”
For the most part, true faith involves belief. So unbelief basically means no faith, though saving faith involves more simply believing (see James 2).
So yes I would say that it is true faith (i.e. faith that shows itself with true repentance and fruit) that determines union with Christ. If you have true faith, unbelief would be forgiven.
I just realised that my last sentance may have been confusing. Perhaps I should have said "If you have faith, your former unbelief would be forgiven". (As I was saying, belief is generally a part of faith).
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response Dan. Much appreciated.
ReplyDeleteI get the sense that Owen sees no split between belief and faith (leaving aside texts like James 2:19 where the context requires us to nuance the meaning of belief). So I think where Owen uses belief/believe and their negatives he could have easily used faith given that they are the same Greek word.
It seems that you've answered Owen's original question by defining the 2 words differently which therefore doesn't really answer his question. In a sense you've answered a different question.
So if i can rephrase Owen and hear your thoughts on the rephrase that would be great.
" If[Christ died for the sins of all men] why are not all freed from the punishment of their sins? You will say 'Because of their lack of faith; they will not have faith.' But this lack of faith, is it sin, or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not? If so then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking in the fruit of his death? If he did not, then did he not die for all sins?"
Mike, I think I already covered it. The differences between defining belief/faith are not core to the issue.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't the one trying to distinguish between the two. I agree that in most biblical usage they are the same, but seeing you brought it up, I thought I should at least mention James.
If Owen doesn't distinguish between belief and faith, then I think my first response to you would suffice.
The problem isn't that no-faith/unbelief is a sin. It's that faith/belief is the means for receiving grace, so without it you don't receive grace. Which answers the question of "then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking in the fruit of his death?"
Blessings
Rather than lead to Universalism, Arminian premises contravene Univrsalism: https://dailyarminian.wordpress.com/
ReplyDelete