John Owen (1616-1683), thanks to ReformationArt.com
Time for our first break from Brown’s Self-Interpreting Bible. How about if we dabble in the doctrine of particular redemption?
I ran across, once again, the famous quote by Puritan theologian par excellence, John Owen (1616-1683), from his book, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Among statements in defense of the Reformed doctrine of particular redemption, this one is literally viral in the Reformed blogosphere. This quote is Owen’s logical critique of general redemption, and is worth thinking through and searching the Scriptures about if you’ve never taken the time.
Anyway, here’s a breakdown of his complex argument from Reformed.org:
The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:
- All the sins of all men.
- All the sins of some men, or
- Some of the sins of all men.
In which case it may be said:
- That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
- That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
- But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?
You answer, “Because of unbelief.”
I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!”
I’ve looked at this many times and have until now always had trouble keeping the whole train of thought on the rails in my head, if you know what I mean. Finally, the other day, I decided I’m going to have to do with this what I do with Scripture verses and catechism questions that I want to memorize–put it to music!
The following is the result. It’s roughly based on the tune to the children’s song “I’m in the Lord’s Army,” although there are some divergences. Do what you will with it. So, without further ado, I give you . . .
Extent
by John D. Chitty
Did Christ die for
all sins of all men
or all sins of some men
or some sins of all men?
If Christ died for
some sins of all men,
then all die
for those he did not.
But if Christ died for
all sins of some men,
that’s what we believe,
all th’elect of all the nations!
But if Christ died for
all sins of all men,
why are not
all men saved?
You will answer
“Because of unbelief”–
Is unbelief a sin or not?
If not, why then,
for it give account?
Either for it
Christ was punished, or not!
If he was, then,
why does unbelief
prevent salvation
more than other sins he died for?
But if he did not
die for unbelief,
then for all sins of all men
Christ did not die!
So Christ died for
all sins of some men,
those the Father
gave to His Son!
I’m from Geneva, and I’m here to help!
The Misadventures of Captain Headknowledge 
I think your recent vacation visits did you some harm? Is harm a sin especially Southern California amusement parks? 🙂
Putting up with your song in words only is enough for now.
I was listening to the sermon of an exegetical review of chapter 16 of the Book of the Revelation recently. Two things stand out to me and I keep pondering and pondering and pondering the sermon kinda like reading Owens, pondering, pondering, pondering his brilliance with understanding doctrine and words.
Rev 16:10 The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and its kingdom was plunged into darkness. People gnawed their tongues in anguish
Rev 16:11 and cursed the God of heaven for their pain and sores. They did not repent of their deeds.
Rev 16:12 The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up, to prepare the way for the kings from the east.
Rev 16:13 And I saw, coming out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits like frogs.
Rev 16:14 For they are demonic spirits, performing signs, who go abroad to the kings of the whole world, to assemble them for battle on the great day of God the Almighty.
Rev 16:15 (“Behold, I am coming like a thief! Blessed is the one who stays awake, keeping his garments on, that he may not go about naked and be seen exposed!”)
Rev 16:16 And they assembled them at the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon.
What distinguishes the one from the other in Owens point above and Revelation 16? Repentance.
What are the garments referred to in Revelation 16? The Righteous and equitable deeds of Christ. We are imputed with His Righteousness by Election and there is no basis of merit of our own. It is Christ’s alone. This is especially upsetting to the self-righteous!
I remember also listening to an audio sermon by the late Dr. J Sidlow Baxter. In this particular message he describes a wonderful summer’s day after services in some village in Scotland while walking from the church house where he was just speaking as the guest speaker to the parson’s house for the traditional after service luncheon with the Pastor and his family. As they were strolling along the footpath from building to building they came upon the back porch area an old man who happened to there sitting in his rocker rocking back and forth enjoying the summer’s day. They greeted one another and Dr. Baxter asked the old man “how was he doing”. The old man’s reply is still ringing the bells of Truth within me! “I’m kept”!
Dr. Baxter then asked those listening to his sermon that I was listening to the audio of to turn to 1 Peter 1 and read verses 3 thru 5!
If my salvation is basis my keeping me, I am doomed. If my salvation is basis what Christ has accomplished already for me, I am kept! Now I get to live the rest of my time here on the earth as a sojourner looking towards that eternal Promised Land that I will come too once I also cross over the proverbial Jordan river!
Thanks, Michael. I love annoying people with my amateur musical talents, as well as my amateur exegetical talents, as are demonstrated below…
We absolutley know that Jesus died for all the sins of all the men. 1Jn 2:2 “And He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” Now to the second part, all men are not free from the punishment of sin because they did not accept this free gift of salvation provided for them, its a free gift but it cost our precious Saviour dearly. Salvation is a free gift from God to whomsoever will. Eph 2:8-9 “For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the GIFT of God, not of works so that no man can boast.”
Greg,
Time is short, but while you wait for more out of me in response to your comment, please consider what I wrote regarding 1 John 2:2 in a previous post:
Since Biblically, Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice actually turned God’s wrath away from those for whom Christ died, if the words “whole world” mean every individual ever born, then this text teaches universal salvation. Neither Dager nor myself would affirm this doctrine. But this is the interpretation of this text if “whole world” really refers to every individual in the history of the world. Rather than limit the efficacy of Christ’s propitiation for us, it is more theologically sound to look for a less erroneous sense for the term, “the whole world.” May we allow Paul’s words to shed light on this? In Romans 9:24, the Apostle to “the whole world,” the Gentiles, writes, “even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles.” This wording demonstrates that it is not erroneous to see Scripture as repeatedly distinguishing between Jews and Gentiles in terms such as are written in 1 John 2:2.
Oh yeah! Here’s the link to that previous post: https://capthk.wordpress.com/2007/02/15/dagers-critique-of-the-tulip/
Hey Captain,
Charles Hodge and RL Dabney, among others, rejected the double-payment dilemma. Its actually unsound in that it only works on pecuniary assumptions (says C Hodge and Dabney).
According to the confessions, the living unbelieving elect are objects of, subject to, the avenging wrath of God while in unbelief. How can that be if the double payment dilemma holds?
Thanks for your time,
David
It’s been a while since I heard from you guys! I’ve got something to share with you later, too. So, stay tuned, true believer!
John says:
Since Biblically, Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice actually turned God’s wrath away from those for whom Christ died, if the words “whole world” mean every individual ever born, then this text teaches universal salvation. Neither Dager nor myself would affirm this doctrine. But this is the interpretation of this text if “whole world” really refers to every individual in the history of the world. Rather than limit the efficacy of Christ’s propitiation for us, it is more theologically sound to look for a less erroneous sense for the term, “the whole world.” May we allow Paul’s words to shed light on this? In Romans 9:24, the Apostle to “the whole world,” the Gentiles, writes, “even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles.” This wording demonstrates that it is not erroneous to see Scripture as repeatedly distinguishing between Jews and Gentiles in terms such as are written in 1 John 2:2.
David:
As I see it, there are a few problems with what you say here.
1) John’s use of “world” may not be identical to Paul’s, and I don’t see how Rom 9:24 bears on the lexical and semantic range of 1 Jon 2:2
2)Throughout 1 John, John consistently uses “world” to denote apostate mankind in opposition to God and his Church, as Carson and others rightly note.
3) Your argument there converse the noun hilasmos into a verb, when you say: “Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice actually turned God’s wrath away…” [emphasis mine]
As a noun it refers to the sacrifice of expiation, not to an accomplished result on God’s side subjectively speaking.
Its not a statement about actual wrath turned aside [past tense], but the sacrifice of expiation which appeases divine wrath.
And this not only with regard to our sins, but with regard to the sins of the whole world.
The noun-to-verb conversion changes everything. When its taken as a noun, the verse speaks to something the expiation does, what its for, its function, etc.
4) Universalism does not entail because the expiation is 1) does not have the efficacy pecuniary satisfactions have, and its application is conditional (C Hodge, Dabney et al).
5) Many Augustinians and Calvinists have readily adopted a universalist reading of 1 Jn 2:2 such as Aquinas, Luther, Mussculus, Bullinger, down to C Hodge, Shedd, Dabney, and many other.
In summary, the two essential missteps, as I see it, are to convert the noun into a verb and then import the sort of efficacy that can only result in pecuniary satisfactions, but not present in penal satisfactions.
Lastly, if I read you rightly, and you have something to share with me, feel free to email me when you want to share it, as I don’t always check in on your blog.
Thanks,
David
Thanks for the invitation to email you, but I’ll be sharing it in this comment thread. When I bring up limited atonement again and it registers in whatever feed you’ve got keeping track of all online references to limited atonement, then perhaps you can swing by and check it out.
In the meantime, I will admit I can’t exegete on the level you can before I even bother trying to counter your claims. I’m a layman and a Bible College dropout. But don’t for a moment think I’m persuaded. 🙂
David,
Did you read R. Scott Clark’s Recovering the Reformed Confessions? pages 27 through 36, “Our Uneasy Relation To Our Own Past” reminded me of your blog. It dealt with the issue of “Calvin vs. Calvinism,” although it didn’t go into a lot of detail regarding your variety of it.
That’s all it was.
hey John,
Regarding the Calvin vs the Calvinist topic, there are a lot of things going on there.
Muller has worked hard on refuting the sorts of arguments adduced by Barth down to Armstrong. The main idea along these lines is the Calvin vs the Calvinist idea has to do with “central dogmas/method.” As if Calvin had a central dogma, from which others deviated from. Or if one method was the normal and then later Orthodoxy returned to Aristotelian rationalist methods.
The issues tho are much bigger and broader, in that it relates to content. Its clear now that the generality of the Reformers (first and second generation, ie 1500s to 1560s) held to unlimited expiation. The issue should not be cast in how they theologized (scholastic method) or the location and order of topics (whats called the ordo docendi “order of descent”: order of topics arranged in the systematics).
Ive tried talking to Clark in comments but he seems unwilling to process the new research Muller is putting together. Clark seems to want to stay in what is clearly now dated views of Reformation and Post-reformation historical analyses.
Check out Muller here: Richard Muller on Non-Amyraldian Precedents to Hypothetical Universalism
Muller is a more nuanced and competent historian. If you can, obtain his 2009 mid-america lectures on varieties of hypothetical universalism from mid-america seminary.
Hope that helps,
David
Hey there,
Sorry I was not clear. I didn’t mean to imply send it to me personally, but if you could notify me when you post it. I don’t have an official feed, its purely a random thing with Word-press.
And I apologize if at all Ive come across arrogant or that Ive intimidated you in anyway. I tend to be direct in comments, as for the most part, they tend to be like sound-bites for the most part. I also try to write analytically in comments as they can turn out to be nasty; and so I just prefer to approach :”comments” clinically and about the facts, the facts, and nothing but the facts. 🙂
I would not kid myself that you would be persuaded at the drop of a hat. 🙂 The goal for all of us is to test everything and not to go beyond what is written the text. I tend to think that converting nouns to verbs is going beyond the text. John Owen did the same thing in his death of death ,too, its a pretty common mistake that many fall into. Its taken on a sort of mythological assumption, that when challenging it, the first response is to look at the challenger as kooky. But once you spot the conversion and its implications its pretty obvious.
To return to the noun issue, construct any sentence of like or similar form 2 1 Jn 2:2 but keep the noun strictly as the noun.
I use this example a lot:
“John is the driver not only for the CEO of the company, but also for all the company workers.”
But now this:
“John has not only driven the company CEO, but also all the company workers.”
Ergo, if John has not driven Mary, we must conclude that Mary is not a company worker or the CEO.
However, its the first example that truly reflects the sentence structure of 1 Jn 2:2, not the second.
Thus from the actual wording of the first example, this argument could NOT be constructed:
“John has not driven Mary, a company worker, therefore John never was a driver for Mary.”
The logic of this example follows your argument very closely:
“if the wrath of God for the sin of a given man was “turned aside” then that man must be saved. Ergo, if a given man is not finally saved, then it was not the case that the wrath of God was ever turned aside with regard to the sin of that given man.”
However, that logical argument could only begin to work–even then it could be challengeable–by converting the noun in 1 Jn 2:2 into a verb, but to do is is illegitimate.
We can go in indefinitely with other examples:
“Sally is the medic not only for this quad, but also for the whole battalion.” Does this mean she has medicated everyone? 🙂 Not at all.
Does that make sense?
If you want to 1) prove limited expiation from this verse and 2) deny that this verse proves unlimited expiation, you must do so on other grounds.
Sorry if Ive come across verbose and redundant.
Thanks for your time.
David
No, I’ve been the one being flippant. I posted the song partly for the humor of it. Wasn’t prepared to get real technical. As you can tell, I’m still processing Owen. As you may know, that can take a while.
Until then, you need to go pick on blogs your own size. I’m gonna stay over here in the shallow end of the Reformed blogosphere pool. Catcha later!
Hey there Keptin,
When I saw this last from you, some metaphors instantly came to mind, like training wheels, pool floaties, etc 😉 … and chess.
When I was a kid, the only way I could get better at chess was to play the better chess players. 🙂
Do read Owen and other like works. Keep in mind, as you read, that every problem Owen raises, Reformed folk, from within the Reformed camp, have answered and rebutted it.
Take your time and if you want to talk, just let me know.
David
As I continue reading Reformed literature, if I begin to detect the kind of errant and irresponsible scholarship that parrallels the kind of thing I experienced while studying KJV-Only/Conspiracy-theorist/fundamentalist literature, then I’ll start to question the appropriateness of the Reformed position on particular redemption.
Hey there,
I got this in the email notification from Word-press:
“Until then, the work of those, like yours, that pit modern Calvinism against the teachings of John Calvin and other reformers will remain pretty much on the back burner.”
That was part of a larger comment which is very close to the one I see. Its replies like this in comments that are not conducive to dialogue. I now regret my humor for fear that it was misread.
Just to be clear, I am not opposing Calvin against the other Reformers. Calvin stands with them exactly: with Luther, with Bullinger, with Zwingli, with Musculus and with the English Reformers and others. Nor am I opposing Calvin and so called “modern calvinism.” Within Calvinism, historically, there have been two trajectories, the Calvinist universalist trajectory and the Calvinist particularist trajectory, for want of other words. And nor am I the only one seeing this. Scholars like Richard Muller, G Michael Thomas, Pieter Rouwendal see this too. These two trajectories are just a matter of undeniable historical record, whether we like it or not. The question of which trajectory Calvin, in particular, was in, is part of the ongoing academic research and discussion. I do wonder if the review comments by Muller helped out at all.
Anyway, that’s it from me.
Take care,
David
Yes, I edited my comment, because I did not intend for it to stand in the thread. Does not my editing it out count for an attempt to respect your position while bowing out of further dialogue on it?
Hey there,
Sure, it does. But it tells me that some turn in the conversation you got defensive. Something in my communication pushed a button, I regret that, as no one needs to get defensive.
Anyway… take care,
David
I don’t know if “defensive” would be the right word. Perhaps uninterested in debate with your school of thought would be more accurate. I’m skeptical about your premise that Calvin taught universal redemption. However, I’ll be taking note of Calvin’s comments on the passages debated nowadays that relate to particular redemption. So far, Calvin on 1 John 2:2 disagrees with Greg’s assertion above. He writes that the apostle John’s intention by “not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” was to assure believers that Christ’s sacrifice extends to all who come to faith in the gospel. He then goes on to emphasize that this excludes the reprobate.
Hey there,
You say: I don’t know if “defensive” would be the right word. Perhaps uninterested in debate with your school of thought would be more accurate.
David: Keep in mind that you changed the topic to Calvin. The topic was Owen and his double payment dilemma.
You say: I’m skeptical about your premise that Calvin taught universal redemption.
David: That’s fine. Al I ask is keep an open mind. I assume you know or have seen my extensive Calvin file where I document all his statements on the unlimited extent of the satisfaction and redemption.
You say: However, I’ll be taking note of Calvin’s comments on the passages debated nowadays that relate to particular redemption. So far, Calvin on 1 John 2:2 disagrees with Greg’s assertion above. He writes that the apostle John’s intention by “not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” was to assure believers that Christ’s sacrifice extends to all who come to faith in the gospel. He then goes on to emphasize that this excludes the reprobate.
David: There are only three statements which can be appealed to for the argument that he held to limited expiation.
1) Calvin’s comment to Heshusius. Cunningham probably is the first to cite it that we can see. Yet he says not a lot can be founded on it. Rouwendal, the Dutch scholar in the recent Westminster Theo. Journal says, categorically, that it does not prove that he held to limited atonement. Curt Daniel, Allan Clifford and other Ph.D works give good explanations regarding it.
2) Calvin on 1 Jn 2:2. Charles Bell gives a good explanation, as does Kennedy in his essay on Calvin in the recent “whosoever Will” book. Its clear that Calvin is responding to the idea that salvation is “extended” that is applied to all men, even Satan. Calvin limits this extension to the elect. However, Calvin actually does not assert in principle the idea of limited atonement. And there are statements within the text which indicate a commitment to the traditional lombardian formula, and an affirmation that Christ suffered for the sins of the world.
3) Calvin on 1 Tim 2:4. Cunningham relies on 1 Jn 2:2 and this verse to claim that Calvin held to limited atonement. The problem is, Calvin on 1 Tim 2:4 does not even mention the atonement or its extent. Rather he says that God by will revealed desires all men over every kind. His comments in his tract and sermons on the same are explicit.
Over and against this you have a whole body of Calvin statements saying the very opposite.
Anyway… all I can say is keep an open mind. If you can, before you commit yourself to one position or the other, try to read as widely and deeply as you can, humanly, and material from both sides.
If this helps any, do you grant that any Reformer held to unlimited expiation and redemption?
Take care,
David
To answer your final question, I will venture Luther.
Funny, I tried to put a cap on our conversation. You were acting like you were winding down, and concluding. But I guess you like to have the last word, too, huh?
Take Care, David.
Alright, David, now that I’ve had an opportunity to get briefed on your movement by Roger Nicole (yes, I’m aware there’s a rebuttal of his essay on your site–or was it one of your colleagues?). But I’d like to start going point by point through your first large comment where you point out some problems in my previous explanation of 1 John 2:2.
You wrote, “1) John’s use of “world” may not be identical to Paul’s, and I don’t see how Rom 9:24 bears on the lexical and semantic range of 1 Jon 2:2”
Q: Why does John’s use of “world” have to coincide necessarily with Paul’s use of the word “world”? First of all, the word is not in Romans 9:24–I’m using this verse because it demonstrates that there is precedence for the Calvinist interpretation of the “all” and “world” verses as meaning “not only the Jews, but also from Gentile nations, too.” In Romans 9:24, Paul spells this out, rather than simply using the word “all” or “world.” Why do 1 John 2:2 and Romans 9:24 have to bear on each other’s semantic ranges?
Please stick to answering these simple questions. I’ll come up with others for you to answer later.
Thanks.
Hey there,
John says: Alright, David, now that I’ve had an opportunity to get briefed on your movement by Roger Nicole (yes, I’m aware there’s a rebuttal of his essay on your site–or was it one of your colleagues?).
David: John, why should I engage you after all you’ve said? And still you are coming across so defensively, even bordering on hostility?
John:
But I’d like to start going point by point through your first large comment where you point out some problems in my previous explanation of 1 John 2:2.
You wrote, “1) John’s use of “world” may not be identical to Paul’s, and I don’t see how Rom 9:24 bears on the lexical and semantic range of 1 Jon 2:2″
Q: Why does John’s use of “world” have to coincide necessarily with Paul’s use of the word “world”? First of all, the word is not in Romans 9:24–I’m using this verse because it demonstrates that there is precedence for the Calvinist interpretation of the “all” and “world” verses as meaning “not only the Jews, but also from Gentile nations, too.” In Romans 9:24, Paul spells this out, rather than simply using the word “all” or “world.” Why do 1 John 2:2 and Romans 9:24 have to bear on each other’s semantic ranges?
David: 1) because Paul is not John. 2) Is it established that Paul uses kosmos to denote world as opposed to Jews, in not inclusive of Jews? Every instance of “world” in Romans, for example, certainly includes all mankind. The only possible exception is Roms 11:12:
Romans 11:12 Now if their transgression be riches for the world and their failure be riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be!
On what basis would one think that Paul means to exclude the Jews from these riches?
3) Modern commentators–I mean proper exegetical commentators like DA Carson–hold that John uses “kosmos” with specific theological intent. Whereas Paul may use the word as a geographical reference, John uses it as a spiritual reference. John’s intent is to speak of the bigness and badness of the world of apostate mankind, which includes unbelieving Jews and unbelieving Gentiles. There is no evidence that John uses “kosmos” to denote Gentiles in opposition to the Jews.
John’s use of world: 1 Jn. 2:2, 15ff; 3:1, 13, 17; 4:1, 3ff, 9, 14, 17; 5:4f, 19.
All of them speak to the world as mankind in opposition to God and his church. In 1 Jn 5:19, we have the only other instance of “holos kosmos,” as also found in 1 Jn 2:2, and the meaning is unbelieving mankind in unbelief.
4) Word meanings are defined by “context” and “usage.” In John’s context, “kosmos” denotes all unbelieving mankind in darkness. And his usage denotes the same. Hermeneutics teaches us that word meanings are normally defined by the authors’ own use, not directly by another author’s use.
5) As Dabney says, in 1 John 2:2, the “our” already covers John and his readers, and so “The whole world” is juxtaposed thereby.
Dabney, Lectures, p., 525.
John: Please stick to answering these simple questions. I’ll come up with others for you to answer later.
David: Please lighten up. You are coming across like someone bent out of shape. This is your blog. For my part I have been polite and civil. Right now, tho, its become unpleasant to interact with you. I think it may be better that you take some time to pray about this, meditate on the interaction, and revisit it some time later.
David
a clarification,
It may be that there is some confusion on this point. I had asked the question, “If this helps any, do you grant that any Reformer held to unlimited expiation and redemption?” with the intent of getting back to Calvin through a discussion of methodology. My aim was not to change the subject, but to work on the sub-thread that had developed.
Anyway, I just wanted to clarify that.
Take care,
David
[…] “Extent” August 2010 24 comments 5 […]