John Owen "trilema" (Limited Atonement)

Post by **_Derek** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 8:50 pm

Hi all,

I am wondering if anyone can offer a resolution to the following statement regarding the atonement.

I have been told that the only way to avoid the problem below "is to ultimately deny the vicarious, penal, substitutionary nature of Christ's atonement." (I would add that you can be a universalist).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or 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....

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."

John Owen

Post by **_TK** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:10 am

i certainly am not an expert in calvinism, etc.

however, it seems that unbelief is not necessarily a sin, at least not in the way that i think about unbelief. unbelief is the absence of something. now, knowing something to be true but choosing not to act on it for selfish reasons may be a sin. for example, i believe that the sanhedrin, etc that condemned Jesus probably believed he was who he said he was (how could they not?) but chose not to follow him. that could be called unbelief, but really it is not.

i have always learned that salvation is a gift that you must accept. no one can force you to take it. therefore, Jesus died for all, but not all will accept the gift. some are simply not convinced, i.e. they dont have faith. i am not sure how this unbelief can be called a sin, in and of itself. if they do not accept the claims of Christ, they are not being punished for their unbelief, they are being punished for their sins, which go unforgiven due to their lack of faith.

i must not be smart enough to see the dilemma posed in Owen's statement. he seems to set up 3 possibilities, shoots 2 of them down with quick statements, then falls all over the 3rd that supports his position.

TK

Post by **_Christopher** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:18 pm

Maybe I missed the point of Owens' statements, but it almost seems that he's making himself an auditor of God's books.

Isn't all this between Jesus and the Father?

When I receive a gift, I don't typically ask the giver how much they paid for it.

I might just be dense, but I just can't see what position he is trying to prove here.

Post by **_Derek** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:12 pm

however, it seems that unbelief is not necessarily a sin, at least not in the way that i think about unbelief. unbelief is the absence of something. now, knowing something to be true but choosing not to act on it for selfish reasons may be a sin...

By unbelief, I think he means the opposite of saving faith. He means the saving kind of belief, since salvation is what he is talking about.

Here's the part of the quote that addresses what you are saying I think:

If the first (He died for the sins of all men), 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 (if it is a sin), 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."

So if Jesus died for a person's sin and unbelief is not a sin, then why are they punished for not believing (if it's not a sin)?

they are not being punished for their unbelief, they are being punished for their sins, which go unforgiven due to their lack of faith.

I think the problem that Reformed folks see with this is that Jesus died for their sins. If this "penalty" has been paid, why would He require payment from them as well? Jesus and the unbleleiver are punished.

P.S. I am not a Calvinist. I am just trying to figure this out.

Thanks for the help.

Post by **_TK** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:50 pm

derek wrote:

I think the problem that Reformed folks see with this is that Jesus died for their sins. If this "penalty" has been paid, why would He require payment from them as well? Jesus and the unbleleiver are punished.

i believe that Jesus's death on the cross potentially could save everyone-- but they still have to have faith to make it work.

2 hydrogen molecules and an oxygen molecule can combine to form H20. but they have to get together. there has to be a reaction. the same is true with salvation; Jesus' death is only one part of the equation. his death doesnt automatically "pay the penalty" for the sins of the world- the world has to do its part.

there is probably a technical term for what i am describing-- is it "effectual" atonement or something like that?

TK

Post by **_Derek** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:42 pm

i believe that Jesus's death on the cross potentially could save everyone-- but they still have to have faith to make it work.

The problem is, it's not as if when someone does not make Jesus Lord He go back and not die for their sins. If He has already done it, it's done. 2,000yrs ago.

Maybe the "penal-substitutionary" atonement is wrong. I am pretty sure this is what most Christians hold to. This would be that He died and took the punishment we deserve to secure our salvation.

If He died and took the punishment we deserve and we still get the punishment, then agian, both He and the unbeliever are being punished for the unbeliever's sin. I am not sure I see a way around this.

It would seem that the fellow that posted this quote (originally) was right when he said that to get out of the proposed problem you have to "ultimately deny the vicarious, penal, substitutionary nature of Christ's atonement" and come up with another way of seeing things.

I don't see how it can be "penal" and "substitutionary" if he didn't take the penalty as a substitue for us. I am aware of other views but I haven't really studied any of them out.

Thanks for the responses bro.

Post by **_Sean** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 9:46 pm

Couldn't it just be that Jesus paid the penalty for all sin, but that isn't applied to an individual unless they believe the Gospel, repent, etc?

Paul says:
Rom 5:2 Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

It seems that the Grace of God contained in the Gospel comes to men who recieve it by faith. If they reject it, there is still to potential to have their sins covered but they refused the offer, so their sins will be counted against them. Calvinists reject this because they don't see that man can have a choice.

Mat 10:32 So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven,
Mat 10:33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.

It seems to depend on your response, not on the number of people Jesus died for. Trying to figure that out is looking at it the wrong way, IMO.

Post by **_TK** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 9:46 pm

I know that Paidion has a differing view of the atonement- i was hoping he would have chimed in by now.

if i get real ambitious in the kitchen and bake 6 billion chocolate chip cookies, there should be enough for everyone in the world to have one. but i am not going to shove the cookies down everyone's throat to assuage their sweet tooth. no, they have to choose to take the cookie voluntarily. that's the rule. if they dont, it doesnt mean i didnt bake the cookies. it just means that they didnt abide by the rules. but the great thing is that there is still a cookie waiting for them if they ever have a change of heart. another way of stating this is that i baked a cookie for everyone, but only those who take one will enjoy the benefits.

the same seems true with Jesus-- he died for everyone but not everyone will take action to enjoy the benefit. the key point, though, it seems, is that Jesus's death, IN AND OF ITSELF, is ineffective. i truly hope i am not saying something stupid or insensitive here, i certainly dont mean to do so. his death is only effective to those that believe. its kind of like his death created all of this potential energy. its just bursting to do work-- but it takes a catalyst-- our belief. that turns it into "kinetic" energy and that's what "completes" the atonement and saves us. if jesus had died but no one in the history of the world ever believed in him, then everybody would go to hell. that's the way i have to think of it or else my head will spin.

TK

Post by **_Derek** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 10:10 pm

Couldn't it just be that Jesus paid the penalty for all sin, but that isn't applied to an individual unless they believe the Gospel, repent, etc?

Hi Sean,

Thanks for responding. I really want to figure this out.

The thing is, if Jesus paid the penalty for all sin, then He paid the penalty for all sin and there should be no further penalty. But there is for those that don't believe.

So Jesus pays the penalty for the unbeliver and then the unbeliver pays it too!

Post by **_Sean** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 3:52 am

Derek wrote:
Hi Sean,

Thanks for responding. I really want to figure this out.

The thing is, if Jesus paid the penalty for all sin, then He paid the penalty for all sin and there should be no further penalty. But there is for those that don't believe.

Jesus paid the ransom for all sin, not only the penalty of sin itself but He is saving us out of our sin literally. However, this only applies to those who recieve the truth and are thus saved.

What I am saying is that (IMO) you are reasoning from an invalid premise. That invalid premise is that if Jesus died for all sin then all are forgiven of thier sin. This is invalid. Jesus paid the penalty but you must respond to God's call to the Gospel. In short, two things are required. The atonement of Christ and your saving faith. A relationship with God takes two. The Bible frequently speaks of salvation as both accomplished by God and a walking in the Spirit by man.

Think about it this way. If I win the lottery by getting all the correct numbers but I don't claim the prize by turning in my ticket I don't really win anything even though I'm entitled to it. Nor does the act of turning in a piece of paper with numbers on it entitle me to a prize.

Salvation is conditional upon your response. The atonement only covers your sins if you are responding in faith.

Derek wrote:
So Jesus pays the penalty for the unbeliver and then the unbeliver pays it too!

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking here, can you explain your question/point again?

Do you mean that if one must repent or respond in faith in addition to what Jesus has done then that person is paying the penalty for their sin?

That does not make logical sense to me, if that's what you point was.
If someone sends me a gift, my act of opening it does not mean I paid for the gift or merited it. That person that sent the gift still had to pay for it and send it. Also, if I refuse the package and have the post office "return to sender" then even though someone paid for my gift and sent it, I can still refuse it.