Tag Archives: philosophy

Justin Martyr the Calvinist? (part 5)

Posted on by
2

Summary

This post was not an attempt to examine the Reformed doctrines of grace in detail, nor to argue for or against them. It was written to share some research that was done examining whether the early church held these ideas. Ultimately this research and these posts form a rebuttal to those Reformed teachers that assert that the early church held to the Reformed doctrines of grace prior to Augustine.  In order to narrow the scope of this research, I focused on the quotes used to prove that Justin Martyr was a proto-Calvinist.

There is no problem with Reformed teachers that want to argue for their doctrines using their interpretations of Scripture and/or making a philosophical argument. In making this case, there can reject the teachings in the early church, arguing that the early theologians prior to Augustine were wrong because they incorrectly held that foresight, foreknowledge and freewill are compatible or that synergism is a basis for boasting.

However, it is rather troubling for these teachers to claim, using vague, spurious,  and misleading citations, that the early patristic sources affirmed TULIP and determinism. These claims have to ignore the context of the passages as well as clearer statements made by these writers in an attempt to make them out to be something that they are not. As Cottrell said: this is “extremely poor scholarship”. With a little research it should be clear that Justin, rather than being a confused or contradictory theologian, held to a view of soteriology that denied the very ideas these scholars boldly claim that he held.

I hope that this exercise will encourage readers to take the advice of McMahon and consult the primary sources. In doing so, they will find that the quotes taken from writings of the early church do not support the argument that the early church affirmed the Reformed doctrines of grace, but instead rejected them.

Contra Charles Spurgeon, who would write in his sermon Election (link), that Calvinism is the ancient faith,

It is no novelty, then, that I am preaching; no new doctrine. I love to proclaim these strong old doctrines, which are called by nickname Calvinism, but which are surely and verily the revealed truth of God as it is in Christ Jesus. By this truth I make a pilgrimage into the past, and as I go, I see father after father, confessor after confessor, martyr after martyr, standing up to shake hands with me. Were I a Pelagian, or a believer in the doctrine of free-will, I should have to walk for centuries all alone.

we will find that it is a synergistic understanding of faith and salvation that echoes throughout the centuries.

[<< Prev]

The Death of John Owen’s Argument: a General Atonement means God failed to achieve His goal (Part 1)

Posted on by
7

In the Death of Death in the Death of Christ (1647), Dr. John Owen offers a famous argument for a limited atonement. That was explored in another post. In chapter 1 of Book I there is another challenge presented to those who hold to a general atonement, in which Christ “died to redeem all and every one”.

The dilemma for those rejecting a limited atonement

Anyone holding the view that Christ died for “all the sins of all men”, according to Owen, should logically arrive at an unsatisfying conclusion, thus demonstrating that the view is incorrect.

In a nutshell:

if he died for all, all must also be justified, or the Lord failed in his aim and design, both in the death and resurrection of his Son (Book I 7.1)

800px-John_Owen_by_John_GreenhillAt the end of opening chapter, he also argues:

Wherefore, to cast a tolerable colour upon their persuasion, they must and do deny that God or his Son had any such absolute aim or end in the death or blood-shedding of Jesus Christ, … but that God intended nothing

According to Dr. Owen my options, should I hold that Christ died “for all the sins of all people”, are:

  • Universalism
  • Accepting that God had no purpose or intention behind the cross
  • Accepting that God had a purpose behind the cross but failed to achieve it

Way to box someone into a corner.

BoxingTheology

Continue reading →

The Death of John Owen’s Argument

Posted on by
3

In the Death of Death in the Death of Christ (1647), Dr. John Owen offers a famous argument for a limited atonement. This argument appears at the end of Book I, chapter 3 (link) and seems to force the reader to accept Dr. Owen’s conclusion that Jesus only died for the sins of some, rather than all, people.

To which I may add this dilemma to our Universalists:—

God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either

(1) all the sins of all men, or
(2) all the sins of some men, or
(3) some sins of all men.

If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God enter into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight: “If the Lord should mark iniquities, who should stand?” (Ps. cxxx. 3). We might all go to cast all that we have “to the moles and to the bats, to go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty,” (Isa. ii. 20, 21).

If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world.

If the first, why, then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, “Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.” But this unbelief, is it a 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 of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins. Let them choose which part they will.

This argument seems to box in the opponent of limited atonement. But only because Dr. Owen presumes that another premise is true.

Jesus does not make salvation possible for all but actually saves those whom He specifically chose to die for.

This is stated clearly in chapter 1 of Book I800px-John_Owen_by_John_Greenhill.jpg

The sum of all is, — The death and blood-shedding of Jesus Christ hath wrought, and doth effectually procure, for all those that are concerned in it, eternal redemption, consisting in grace here and glory hereafter.

Owen goes on to argue that those who hold to a general ransom, in which Christ “died to redeem all and every one”, must deny “that any such thing was immediately procured and purchased by” Jesus death. Opponents of a limited atonement must hold that Continue reading →