FOR WHOM DID CHRIST DIE?
by 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!"
Articles Yes, Vote, but Resist the Political Illusion
43 minutes ago
23 comments:
A short and sweet gem of a teaching! A true teacher of the Word, was John Owen.
After digging into 2 Pet. 2:1 in such a thorough way concerning this doctrine, and I learned a lot, I thought another verse which I struggle with to a degree, could be looked at as well, if anyone would want to.
"For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." 1 Tim. 4:10
Thanks.
Very succinct, and true.
And of course unbelief is a sin.
I have heard some say that unrepentant unbelief (that is dying in unbelief) is the unpardonable sin--that however finds no support in Scripture.
I love that logic. Isn't this from the Death of Death in the Death of Christ?
This from John Gill's commentary on 1 Timothy 4:10
Who is the Saviour of all men; in a providential way, giving them being and breath, upholding them in their beings, preserving their lives, and indulging them with the blessings and mercies of life; for that he is the Saviour of all men, with a spiritual and everlasting salvation, is not true in fact.
Specially of those that believe; whom though he saves with an eternal salvation; yet not of this, but of a temporal salvation, are the words to be understood: or as there is a general providence, which attends all mankind, there is a special one which relates to the elect of God; these are regarded in Providence, and are particularly saved and preserved before conversion, in order to be called; and after conversion, after they are brought to believe in Christ, they are preserved from many enemies, and are delivered out of many afflictions and temptations; and are the peculiar care and darlings of providence, being to God as the apple of his eye: and there is a great deal of reason to believe this, for if he is the Saviour of all men, then much more of them who are of more worth, value, and esteem with him, than all the world beside; and if they are saved by him with the greater salvation, then much more with the less; and if he the common Saviour of all men, and especially of saints, whom he saves both ways, then there is great reason to trust in him for the fulfilment of the promises of life, temporal and eternal, made to godliness, and godly persons. This epithet of God seems to be taken out of Psa_17:7 where he is called מושיע חוסים, "the Saviour of them that trust", or believe.
Mike,
Thanks for that excellent commentary. The Puritans were incredible, and thanks be to God still are for us.
To God be all the glory. Amen.
Don Sands - Thanks Brother!
Dear Steve,
That sure is the Reader's Digest version! I'm plowing through the whole thing now, and it is tough reading---both exhaustive and exhausting!
http://www.graciouscall.org/books/owen/death/toc.shtml
My puny education, which cost many dollars and years, has not prepared me for scholarship at the Puritans' level. I'm humbled, and I'm inspired to study more and better.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
Good to see it once again Steve I've often used the logic that Owen displays here in my response to Arminian objections.
Very logical but where is the Scripture? (Sola Scriptura?)
Excellent!
John Owen and Rembrandt all in one post!
Here is another gem from this great saint from the homepage of monergism.com:
“To suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect."
Here's a friendly suggestion:
In making the case for Limited Atonement, I find it helpful to abandon the term "atonement". It's a term almost designed to confuse for these reasons:
1. The concept of "atonement" in the Old Covenant was one of a temporary covering of sins, through the sacrifice of animals. In the New Covenant, the sacrifice for sins does more than just cover, and is not temporary, but once-for-all.
2. It's abused by New Agers and cultists by splitting the English word into at - one - ment, and speaking of our becoming one with the Universal Mind God type of thing.
3. In theology it encompasses at least four separate issues regarding the cross: sacrifice to pay the penalty of death; propitiation to remove us from the wrath of God; reconciliation to overcome our separation from God; and redemption to "redeem" or "purchase" or "ransom" us out of bondage to sin and Satan. (Ref. "Sysematic Theology", W. Grudem, pp. 579-580).
Better to deal with those four issues separately, as they are easier to defend scripturally from a Calvinistic point of view.
4. "Atonement" is not a New Testament word anyway, used only once in Rom. 5:11 in the KJV (but used incorrectly for "reconciliation").
When speaking of the 5 Points, I find it gives much more light on the subject to use the term "Particular Redemption", especially when dealing with an Arminian that you really care for and want to persuade, as opposed to "beating" in a debate.
Since the term "Redemption" includes the concept of "effectual" in it's definition, it has half the battle won. Even an Arminian will seldom argue that all men are "redeemed", only to be lost because of their refusal to "accept Christ".
Blessings,
Terry
Unbelief is a sin for which Christ died.However without faith, the payment is not effectual. By grace through faith are we saved.
Limited Atonement - the atonement is limited to those who by faith appropriate it.
Christ died for those who He would actually save; those to whom God gives faith. As in Ephesians 2:8.
"The Death of Death" (vol. 10 of Owen's Works) is excellent, though perhaps not the easiest place to start with Owen. I believe I heard Carl Trueman recommend, and I hope to soon read, volumes 3, 4, and 6.
Excellent! John Piper needs to read and re-read this! It really is this simple. Thanks John Owen for your clarity!
Thanks for posting!
Steve,
You know this only works of you believe Jesus' death on the cross actually accomplished something on its own.
Good post!
Mark
I have had this brief apologetic taped to the inside cover of my Bible for many years. Why most Christians refuse to believe this is a mystery to me. Pride is certainly one factor.
Mark
You know this only works if you believe Jesus' death on the cross actually accomplished something on its own.
Amen! And yes it did... the redemption of the elect who were chosen by God in Christ in times past eternal, but in time were regenerated by the Holy Spirit and given saving faith to confess and believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and that God has raised Him from the dead!
Rick
Limited Atonement - the atonement is limited to those who by faith appropriate it.
Almost.
A dead man in sin can't appropriate anything but unbelief and wrath upon wrath living suppressing the truth of God in unrighteousness. That was me and you before regeneration. We were by nature, children of wrath.
But the faith to believe is a gift from God; even the godly sorrow to repent is God's gracious gift to us. It is all of grace, all of Christ. We appropriate nothing. We simply see the fruit of confession as the result of saving faith being given to us as a result of regeneration by which we believe.
kelvington
John Piper needs to read and re-read this! It really is this simple.
I thought Piper believed this too? OR, are you saying he unnecessarily complicates this issue in the way he has taught it in the past?
In either scenario, I always thought Piper was lucid and biblical on this issue. Help me understand further what you were saying.
Steve
Darrin
Christ died for those who He would actually save; those to whom God gives faith. As in Ephesians 2:8.
You said it much better and more concise than I did. Thank you. Spot on!
TO ALL
One further thought to consider:
When we get a hold of this truth biblically, it will revolutionize the way we do evangelism. Only the Lord can add to His church daily, such as to be saved.
Amen?
That's an interesting argument by John Owen.
In all three cases, though, people are guilty of unbelief, not just in the first premise.
It is not initially the "belief" that saves us. Initially, we are chosen by Him "before the creation of the world", before we exercise that belief. And being born in sin, we are guilty before we can even choose to believe. Unbelief is a sin which Christ died for, and unbelief becomes belief which brings men to Christ because some are “chosen”. And all men aren't free from punishment, because the Scriptures do not say that all are “chosen”.
Also, in the last premise that Christ died for "some sins of all men" would also suggest that men are saved while still in “some” of their sins.
So, in the first and last premises it can be reasoned that all men do not have their sins paid for, whether it be some sins or the totality of them (which reinforces the doctrine of election).
Trying to reason it out sure does crystallize in one's thinking that Christ died for all the sins of the elect (chosen) in the world.
In that second premise, John Owen indicated that he went with the second premise, saying "...this is the truth" and didn't question it.
Otherwise, he might have asked, "Then have some men no sins to answer for, and are therefore freed from the punishment of all their sins, and so only the elect are saved?"
And we know from the Scriptures that the answer is “Yes”. And the beauty of it is that this was the truth before the creation of the world, because they were simply "chosen".
I know I am late in game. However, if one was to answer the question "why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?" by saying "because they have committed the unforgivable sin" and sites Luke 12:10. For even the ESV study bible states "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit—that is, the persistent and unrepentant resistance against the work of the Holy Spirit and his message concerning Jesus". Can you please explain this to me more?
Post a Comment