Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

For Whom did Christ die? - Puritan Logic (Calvinism)
reformed.org ^ | UNK | John Owen

Posted on 05/07/2002 10:20:28 AM PDT by CCWoody

FOR WHO DID CHRIST DIE?

John Owen


The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:

  1. All the sins of all men.
  2. All the sins of some men, or
  3. Some of the sins of all men.

In which case it may be said:

  1. That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
  2. 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.
  3. 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!"




TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: calvinism; johnowen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241 next last
To: CCWoody; ventana
I like Dr. Owen somewhat, but he's flat-out wrong here. He follows the Penal Substitionary Theory to its logical conclusion, at least--more than can be said for most that believe it is the only (or the "best") way to describe the Atonement.

But since when can justice be served by punishing the innocent for the guilty's crimes?

Biblical Theology has an article that shows the various theories of atonement, and their logical conclusions. It also says this about the Penal Substitutionary Theory:

[It] assumes that the Trinity divided itself and punished Jesus on the Cross. It assumes that the punishment of the innocent is wrong for man, but somehow, would be right for God. It assumes that sin can be transferred from one to another, which is an ethical fiction. Righteousness can no more be imputed [in the "transfer of character" sense] to a sinner than bravery to a coward or wisdom to a fool. While the theory assumes that Christ paid the sin-debt, but yet for this key issue they are without any Scriptural evidence. Consistent Calvinists will say this payment is limited to the Elect only and to their peril they must rob the Scriptures of all the references to the will of God to save all. Most who hold to this atonement theory are inconsistent in their use of it. When were sins paid? (assuming that they were paid) On the Cross of course! Then in reality, when someone gets “saved” they are actually just waking up to the fact that they have been saved all the time; they just woke up to the fact that they were paid for 2000 years ago. The inevitable conclusion of payment is, that if Jesus died for all, then all must be acquitted on judgment day.

He then gives a better option:

The Governmental Theory

The essence of this theory is that Jesus voluntarily suffered as a substitute for punishment. To be able to punish someone they must be guilty. But to torture an innocent man is to make him suffer. Suffering inflicted upon a man to make him better in the future is not punishment, but discipline: to be punishment, it must be inflicted for evil deeds done in the past. Suffering endured for the sake of society is not punishment: if accepted voluntarily, it is the heroism of self-sacrifice; if inflicted by arbitrary authority, it is injustice on the one side and martyrdom on the other. That the suffering inflicted is deserved is a necessary element in the conception of punishment.

This is illustrated from the form of oriental law that is still practiced in some places in the Middle East today. For example, in Turkey a criminal gets a one year prison sentence. His family cannot provide on their own. So according to their law, the wife, friend, or child can substitute for the breadwinner by taking their place in prison, or could even go as far as substituting in death. In the view of the government, this would satisfy the interest of justice. Through this approach, the demands of the government are met and the guilty given grace by the innocent substitute.

With this system we can still have the pardon the Bible talks about through the provision made by our Savior. Nowhere in the Bible is it said that Jesus was punished on the Cross, but everywhere it is said that He suffered. Luke 9:22; 17:25; Acts 3:18; 26:23; 2 Tim. 3:12; 1 Pet. 1:11; 2:21; 3:18; 4:1, 13; 5:1.

If Jesus suffered, he was not punished. If he was not punished, he was not sinful on the Cross. But what about 2 Cor. 5:21, “For he hath made him to be sin for us”? The Scriptures commonly use the singular term “sin” in the sense of a sin-offering. In the Old Testament we are told that the animal sacrifice was to become “sin” but yet it is translated sin-offering. In Heb. 10:4, it is said that “it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.” If we say that Jesus literally became sin, then we must go against the Scripture and say that bull and goats were effectual offerings because they transferred sin.


21 posted on 05/07/2002 1:34:02 PM PDT by The Grammarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
See 21.

And the non-Calvinists accuse us of parsing Scripture.

22 posted on 05/07/2002 1:41:20 PM PDT by Jerry_M
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody; Jerry_M; RnMomof7; ventana; kjam22
And they are all saying that Jesus suffered for sinners whom God will then turn around and punish in the Lake of Fire for all eternity. Thus, God punished twice the same sins. And they call Calvinism sick!

Good point. That's why I don't accept the Penal Substitutionary Theory as the foundation upon which I base my understanding of the Atonement.

Here's Biblical Theology's Jeff Paton again:

We have insuperable philosophical and ethical difficulties in the way of receiving the statement that the guilt of the race was transferred to Christ. Character is personal, and cannot be transferred. Sin is not an entity, a substance which can be separated from the sinner and be transferred to another and be made an attribute of his character by such a transfer. Sin is the act or state of the thinker. If sin cannot exist in the abstract, it cannot be punished in the abstract. If it cannot be transferred to another, it cannot be punished in another, though a man may voluntarily suffer to save another from punishment.

While it is true that Jesus is our substitute, He is our substitute truly and strictly only in suffering, not in punishment. Sin cannot be punished and pardoned also. (in a court of law, the judge has only two options if you are guilty, he either pardons or he punishes, he cannot do both. So if sin was paid for on the cross, then the sin that He died for was punished and therefore, there is no need for God to forgive since the cause of justice has already been satisfied.)

In his presentation of the Governmental theory, Dr. Steele sees no division in the Trinity on Calvary’s Cross. The atonement is a provision and not a payment. The whole Trinity working together in God’s plan to reconcile man, there was no separation on the cross, for "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself." 2 Cor. 5:19.

Further Steele says:

There is no punishment of sin except in the person of the sinner who neglects so great a Savior. Sin was not punished on the Cross. Calvary was the scene of wondrous mercy and love, not of wrath and penalty.

What is the inevitable outcome of the doctrine that sin was punished on the cross? Whose sin? If it be answered, that of the whole human race, then universalism emerges, for God cannot in justice punish sin twice.

Now there are several reasons why I have been unable to preach this theory of the atonement (that Jesus was punished on the cross).

1. It is not exact justice to punish the innocent.

2. Guilt is personal and can not be transferred.

3. It leaves no room for a literal and true pardon from sin,….. Pardon, being a gracious remission of deserved penalty, cannot be required after the penalty has been fully endured by the substitute. In essence he is saying, if it’s paid, there is nothing left to forgive.

4. The punishment of the innocent....would be wrong for man and right for God?

5. For if the sins of all men were punished in Jesus Christ, no man can be justly punished, either in this world or in the world to come, for sins already expiated by suffering their penalty. I lay no foundations for the delusive doctrine of the final salvation of all men.

In the Governmental Theory the vicarious sufferings and death of Christ are an atonement for sin as a conditional substitute for punishment, fulfilling, on the obligation of sin, the obligation of justice in moral government. The advantages of this theory are:

1. It can be preached without mental reservations.

2. It avoids the irrational idea that Christ was literally made sin and a curse.

3. It makes no dualism or collision between the divine Persons, the Father punishing the Son.

4. It satisfies the Protector of the divine law. Personifying the law and saying it was satisfied is wrong, Only persons can be satisfied.

5. This theory (the Governmental theory) is Biblical.

Here's another website dealing with the subject.
The Reformed Calvinist argues that by the very nature of atonement all must limit it in some sense—Calvinists and Arminians. But this is not so. The Calvinist must limit atonement to the elect or have Universalism, since all for whom Christ died are irresistibly saved. So to escape the scourge of “limited atonement,” it is claimed that Arminians “limit” atonement, too!

The New Testament theory of atonement does not assume, along with the Calvinist, that atonement and benefits are one and the same. It does not assume that atonement is expiation, i.e., that all for whom He died will be saved, but that the atonement (hilasmos) is the provision for all men, and that reconciliation (katallagê) and redemption (apolutrõsis), etc. are the benefits; and that the benefits are conditional and not irresistible. This requires no limitation whatsoever.

Thus, that all for whom Christ died are irresistibly saved necessi­tates “limited atonement.” But that atonement is an unlimited provision for all men as an act of God knows no limitations, is therefore universal in scope and intent, and cannot be limited. The benefits of the atonement —salvation and sanctification—are for whosoever will, therefore condi­tional, and must not and cannot be construed as a “limitation;” for the conditions call upon “whosoever will” to meet the standard of Divine appointment with respect to the benefits. Accordingly, “limited atone­ment” and the “conditional benefits” of the atonement for “whosoever will” differ infinitely in nature and can never be brought together; for they stand in antithesis, the one to the other.

It is therefore an utter absurdity to claim the “limited atonement” and the “conditional benefits” of the atonement are equals in that both necessarily “limit” the atonement!

We conclude, then, that “limited atonement” is limited necessarily; and that the “conditional benefits” of the atonement are unlimited necessarily!

For the rest of this article and another article similar to it, I would suggest looking here and here.

23 posted on 05/07/2002 1:55:43 PM PDT by The Grammarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Jerry_M
I'd love to know how I or the writers I quoted "parsed" Scripture there.
24 posted on 05/07/2002 1:57:08 PM PDT by The Grammarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Jerry_M
And the non-Calvinists accuse us of parsing Scripture.

Somehow, I think that he is out of even the mainstream Arminianism. Of course, I could be wrong. I guess that the puritan logic was too much for most of the non-Calvinist to even attempt to tackle.

25 posted on 05/07/2002 2:54:22 PM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: babylonian
It's like you've been invited out for dinner. You can choose not to go, but if you stay home, you don't get the dinner.

What if you are not hungery?

26 posted on 05/07/2002 2:54:31 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: The Grammarian
In his presentation of the Governmental theory, Dr. Steele sees no division in the Trinity on Calvary’s Cross. The atonement is a provision and not a payment. The whole Trinity working together in God’s plan to reconcile man, there was no separation on the cross, for "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself." 2 Cor. 5:19.

So under this theory just who does pay for the sins? Perhaps you would like to join your Catholic breathern in Purgatory..

27 posted on 05/07/2002 3:02:12 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Jerry_M;drstevej;Matchett-PI
Excuse me for bothering you Pastors ..but do you both notice a bit of Finney in some of this?

Machett FYI

28 posted on 05/07/2002 3:04:35 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
That's the problem with this world, too few truly hungry people.
29 posted on 05/07/2002 3:05:41 PM PDT by babylonian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; Matchett-PI; drstevej
"..but do you both notice a bit of Finney in some of this?"

I had, but I thought that the material on Finney was on another thread, and it might confuse things here to comment on that. Looks like the "same-o, same-o" to me.

Was that another thread, or this one?

30 posted on 05/07/2002 3:07:57 PM PDT by Jerry_M
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Excuse me for bothering you Pastors ..but do you both notice a bit of Finney in some of this?

I was thinking bit o Pelagian...

31 posted on 05/07/2002 3:13:27 PM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: babylonian
It's like you've been invited out for dinner. You can choose not to go, but if you stay home, you don't get the dinner.

Sorry, but the Cross of Christ is not like dinner and the gospel ain't Rev 3:20.

Here's a hint: the gospel has a name that is exactly 5 words. And the gospel can be expressed in exactly 3 words.

BTW, using your analogy that unbelief is like not choosing to go for dinner, isn't this sin paid for? Why then should this hinder anybodies ultimate glorification more than any other sin?

32 posted on 05/07/2002 3:17:27 PM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: babylonian
That's the problem with this world, too few truly hungry people.

Exactly bab...Because of the fall, man is spiritually dead and so he does not hunger and thirst..so he will never will to come to the table. He will not even look for the restaurant:>)

He just goes along doing a little snacking here and there ,always with the goal of keeping himself comfortable. he gets to be in charge and select exactly the nibbles he wants...

But if that dead man is given a new life..ahhhhhhh he realizes he is starved for righteousnes......and there is only one place to find THAT table..and he will run to it..so he will never hunger and thirst again..

(psssss Calvinists call that being born again:>))) pass the milk please.*grin* hey Bab how be ya ??

33 posted on 05/07/2002 3:18:55 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
You would be suggesting that the Lord promised to pay for all the sins in the whole world! Scripture source please....

Gladly!



NIV John 1:7
 7.  He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe.
(sounds like the WHOLE WORLD to me!)
 
 
NIV John 3:17
 17.  For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
(sounds like the WHOLE WORLD to me!)
 
 
NIV Acts 13:38-41
 38.  "Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you.
 39.  Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses.
 40.  Take care that what the prophets have said does not happen to you:
 41.  "`Look, you scoffers, wonder and perish, for I am going to do something in your days that you would never believe, even if someone told you.' "
(sounds like the WHOLE WORLD to me!)
 
 
NIV Colossians 1:19-20
 19.  For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,
 20.  and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
(sounds like the WHOLE WORLD to me!)
 
 
NIV Hebrews 7:25
25.  Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.
(sounds like the WHOLE WORLD to me!)

34 posted on 05/07/2002 3:20:48 PM PDT by Elsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jerry_M
The big lie of Finney

Courtesy of our friend Matchett-PI

35 posted on 05/07/2002 3:22:41 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Ignoring your misuse of scripture for a moment, why then is everyone not saved? And why does God, who hates a false balance, then punish 2 people (Jesus and the sinner in hell) for the same sins?

Is Jesus unable to keep His promise to pay for all sins?

36 posted on 05/07/2002 3:25:04 PM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Elsie; CCWoody
"(sounds like the WHOLE WORLD to me!)"

Unless you are going to tell us that everyone will be saved (Universalism), then maybe those verses you produced aren't saying what you think they say. Maybe they aren't talking about all men, everywhere, without exception.

37 posted on 05/07/2002 3:28:23 PM PDT by Jerry_M
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

I do reserve the right to examine your misused scriptures at my convenience, though.
38 posted on 05/07/2002 3:28:52 PM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
I wonder if the Bible says that unbelief is a sin....

Wonder no more...........



NIV Romans 4:17-25
 17.  As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations."  He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed--the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.
 18.  Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, "So shall your offspring be."
 19.  Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead--since he was about a hundred years old--and that Sarah's womb was also dead.
 20.  Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God,
 21.  being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised.
 22.  This is why "it was credited to him as righteousness."
 23.  The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone,
 24.  but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness--for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.
 25.  He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.
 
 
NIV Romans 11:13-23
 13.  I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry
 14.  in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.
 15.  For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 
 16.  If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.
 17.  If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root,
 18.  do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you.
 19.  You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in."
 20.  Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid.
 21.  For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
 22.  Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.
 23.  And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
 
 
NIV 1 Timothy 1:13-16
 13.  Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief.
 14.  The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.
 15.  Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--of whom I am the worst. *
 16.  But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life.
 
 
NIV Hebrews 3:18-19
 18.  And to whom did God swear that they would never enter his rest if not to those who disobeyed ?
 19.  So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief.

* (This should be ALL our attitudes!!!)


39 posted on 05/07/2002 3:32:15 PM PDT by Elsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
NIV John 1:7 7. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe.

ALL 3956 Go to Jhn 1:7
> 3956 pas {pas}
including all the forms of declension; TDNT - 5:886,795; adj
AV - all 748, all things 170, every 117, all men 41, whosoever 31, everyone 28, whole 12, all manner of 11, every man
11, no + 3756 9, every thing 7, any 7, whatsoever 6, whosoever + 3739 + 302 3, always + 1223 3, daily + 2250 2, any thing 2, no + 3361 2, not tr 7, misc 26; 1243

1) individually
1a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
2) collectively
2a) some of all types ++++ ... "the whole world has gone after him" Did all the world go after Christ? "then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan." Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan? "Ye are of God, little children", and the whole world lieth in the wicked one". Does the whole world there mean everybody? The words "world" and "all" are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the "all" means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts -- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile ...

C.H. Spurgeon from a sermon on Particular Redemption

Some times ALL does not mean all Elsie

40 posted on 05/07/2002 3:32:52 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson