Calvin & Calvinism

John Owen’s Double Payment Argument for Definite Atonement and the Arminian Universalist Dilemma

Universalism = Christ Died for the sins of all people without exception

I. John Owen, in The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (1648), offers a classic defence of definite atonement—the doctrine that Christ’s death was both definite in purpose and effective in accomplishment. Christ died not for humanity in general, but specifically for the elect whom the Father had given him; and his death actually secured their redemption.

Owen advances two powerful arguments in defence of this position.

The Double Payment Argument
Sin is a debt owed to God’s justice. Christ’s death has fully paid the penalty for sin. If Christ died for all people universally, then all must be saved, because a just creditor does not demand payment for the same debt twice. Exacting double punishment—first on Christ, then on the condemned sinner—is unjust. Yet Scripture clearly teaches that not everyone is saved. Therefore, Christ did not die for all people universally, and his atoning work was intended only for the elect – This is an argument to the contrary. (John Owen, The Works of John Owen, Goold ed. [Banner of Truth reprint, 1989], vol. 10, p. 173. All subsequent citations refer to this edition.)

The Universalist Dilemma
Owen then challenges the universalist claim that Christ died for every individual human being. He argues that this position entails one of three possibilities: Christ bore (1) all the sins of all people, (2) some of the sins of all people, or (3) all the sins of some people. Option (1) entails universal salvation, which contradicts Scripture. Option (2) means every person still stands condemned for their remaining sins. Only option (3) is logically coherent and scripturally grounded. Owen concludes that Christ died for all the sins of the elect alone. Continue reading “John Owen’s Double Payment Argument for Definite Atonement and the Arminian Universalist Dilemma”

“Regeneration Precedes Faith”. An AI-assisted Calvinist Rebuttal to Arminian David Allen’s Analysis of Key Verses in 1 John

1 John 5:1 Πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός, ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται, καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὸν γεννήσαντα ἀγαπᾷ [καὶ] τὸν γεγεννημένον ἐξ αὐτοῦ.

I. Does the Calvinist teaching “regeneration precedes faith” find support in Greek grammar?

Within Reformed (Calvinist) theology, it is maintained that regeneration logically precedes faith. That is, fallen human beings—being spiritually dead—are incapable of believing unless the Holy Spirit first imparts new life. This doctrine safeguards the monergistic character of salvation: it is wholly the work of God’s grace and not dependent on human initiative.

Several biblical texts are commonly cited in support of this position:
1. John 3:3–8 “Unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Jesus teaches that spiritual rebirth is a necessary precondition for perceiving and entering the kingdom. Faith—understood as seeing and believing—follows regeneration.
2. 1 John 5:1 “Everyone who believes [present active participle] that Jesus is the Christ has been born [perfect passive verb] of God.” The Greek construction suggests that the state of having been born of God grounds the act of believing.
3. Ephesians 2:4–5 “Even when we were dead in trespasses, [God] made us alive together with Christ.” A dead person must be made alive (regenerated) before he can exercise faith.

II. Allen’s Challenge
In his article “Does Regeneration Precede Faith?” (JBTM, 2014), David Allen challenges the Reformed interpretation of 1 John 5:1, arguing that the claim “regeneration precedes faith” cannot be proven from Greek grammar. According to Allen, “The most that can be said from the Greek present participle and perfect tense verb combination is that the actions are contemporaneous” (p. 41). He appeals to the broader context of John’s writings, noting that passages such as John 20:31 present faith as the condition for life, not its result. Continue reading ““Regeneration Precedes Faith”. An AI-assisted Calvinist Rebuttal to Arminian David Allen’s Analysis of Key Verses in 1 John”

Definite (Limited) Atonement and Particular Redemption through Christ’s Death in Pauline Theology. Part 2/2

Definite Atonement and Particular Redemption through Christ’s Death in Pauline Theology

A) Paul consistently teaches definite atonement in several passages:
1. Acts 20:28 — The Purchased Church
Paul exhorts the Ephesian elders to shepherd the church “which he [God] purchased with his own blood.” He paid an incalculable price to save a people for himself through Christ’s death on the cross. The verb περιεποιήσατο (“purchased, obtained, gain for oneself”) denotes actual acquisition, not potential provision. This is an effective redemption, not a hypothetical one. Christ did not shed His blood in vain or indefinitely, but to redeem the Church effectually.

The object of this purchase is specific: the church (ἐκκλησία) — elsewhere called the flock, the sheep, and the bride of Christ (John 10:11; Ephesians 5:25). These are not open, universal categories; they are bounded images for a particular people. The atonement, therefore, is definite in both design and effect.

2. 1 Corinthians 11:25 — Covenant Blood for a Defined People
“This cup is the new covenant in my blood” — The cup is a formal pledge that guarantees the salvation of those named within that covenant. The words echo Jeremiah 31:31–34: “And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” The new covenant is presented as an unconditional covenant, ratified solely on the promise of the sovereign God. It gathers God’s exiled people from every nation, yet it gathers a defined people, not all people indiscriminately. Continue reading “Definite (Limited) Atonement and Particular Redemption through Christ’s Death in Pauline Theology. Part 2/2”

Definite (Limited) Atonement and Particular Redemption through Christ’s Death in Pauline Theology. Part 1/2

[responsivevoice_button voice=”UK English Female” buttontext=”Listen to Post”]

Introduction
This essay argues that Paul teaches definite atonement and particular redemption—the view that Christ’s saving death and atoning work are directed intentionally toward a specific group of people, namely the elect. Christ’s atonement does not merely open the possibility of redemption; it effectually accomplishes actual redemption. This stands in contrast to the Arminian position, which holds that Christ’s death provides only a potential redemption available to all who choose to receive it.

Rather than cataloguing a broad array of biblical texts, this essay anchors its analysis in one key passage—2 Corinthians 5:14-15—to highlight how the inner logic of the passage established by careful theological exegesis confirms Paul’s teaching of particular redemption. Continue reading “Definite (Limited) Atonement and Particular Redemption through Christ’s Death in Pauline Theology. Part 1/2”

A Calvinist Critique of Arminian Hermeneutics of Election and Salvation

[responsivevoice_button voice=”UK English Female” buttontext=”Listen to Post”]

Debates between Calvinism and Arminianism concerning salvation frequently center not only on doctrinal conclusions but also on differing approaches to biblical interpretation. Both traditions affirm the final authority of Scripture and seek to interpret biblical texts responsibly within their literary and theological contexts. Nevertheless, they often arrive at sharply different conclusions regarding divine election, grace, and human freedom.

This article examines several key passages commonly discussed in the debate and offers a Reformed (Calvinist) critique of Arminian hermeneutical method, particularly where Calvinist interpreters believe theological assumptions influence the reading of the text.

Definitions
Calvinist Monergism: All fallen human beings are spiritually dead due to sin. Salvation begins with God’s sovereign and effectual grace, which regenerates chosen individuals so that they are enabled to respond in faith to God’s offer of salvation. Salvation originates entirely in God’s initiative rather than in the human will. In this framework, regeneration precedes faith.
Arminian Synergism: All fallen human beings have been given God’s prevenient grace, which restores the ability to respond freely to the gospel. This grace is sufficient to enable faith but does not guarantee it. Faith is not caused irresistibly by grace but freely exercised by the individual. Salvation involves cooperation between prevenient grace and human response.

Romans 9:15–16 and the Ground of Salvation
Continue reading “A Calvinist Critique of Arminian Hermeneutics of Election and Salvation”

Does God Act Arbitrarily? Leighton Flowers Stigmatizes Calvinism to Win Debate

Leighton Flowers begins in his chapter, “A Critique of Unconditional Election,” published in the latest critique on Calvinism by David Allen and Steve Lemke, Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique by emphasising the contrast between “the biblical choices of God which are not conditioned upon the merits of those chosen” with the Calvinist “unbiblical principle of God secret making arbitrary choices which unilaterally fixes the eternal destiny of every individual.”

A clear distinction must be drawn between the biblical choices of God, which are not conditioned upon the merits of those chosen, versus the Calvinist system, which logically entails the unbiblical principle that God secretly made arbitrary [emphasis original] choices before the foundation of the world, unilaterally fixing the eternal destiny of every individual. (CBTC 51)

Flowers concludes, I believe this doctrine, when logically and consistently applied, can be dangerous for the believer and the overall mission of the church and thus must be firmly refuted and soundly rejected as unbiblical teaching.” (CBTC 68) Continue reading “Does God Act Arbitrarily? Leighton Flowers Stigmatizes Calvinism to Win Debate”

The Problem With Arminian Middle Knowledge

Some young Calvinists I know are not sure how to respond to their friends who reject the Calvinist doctrine of God’s foreknowledge and predestination with a self-assured declaration, “No thanks, Calvinist predestination is theologically and logically problematic. I prefer Luis de Molina’s teaching of the “scientia media or middle knowledge as it is more coherent and persuasive.” These young Calvinists become unsettled and feel intimidated by the unfamiliar terminology thrown at them. However, a simple question would dispel the Molinist’s aura of sophistication. “As a Molinist, are you then a Jesuit or an Arminian? Since you are Protestant, I conclude that you are basically rebranding old-time Arminianism by using exotic language, granted that the idea of a divine middle knowledge is at the heart and soul of the Arminian view.”

This being clarified, we can focus on the theological problem with Arminian middle knowledge. To begin, classical theology referred to two kinds of divine knowledge: Continue reading “The Problem With Arminian Middle Knowledge”

Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) Does Not Mean Solo Scriptura (Scripture Only – Biblicism)

What is Biblicism?
To be Protestant is to believe in biblical authority. However, biblical authority and biblicism are not synonymous. Biblicism moves beyond believing in the final authority of the Bible to imposing a restrictive hermeneutical method onto the Bible. Biblicism can be identified by the following symptoms:

(1) Ahistorical mindset: Biblicism is a haughty disregard (chronological snobbery in the words of C. S. Lewis) for the history of interpretation and the authority of creeds and confessions, chanting an individualistic mantra, “No creed but the Bible,” which in practice translates into “No authority but me.” Sola scriptura is radicalized into solo scriptura. As a result, biblicism fails to let theology inform exegesis, which is designed to guard against heresy.

(2) Irresponsible proof texting: Biblicism treats Scripture as if it is a dictionary or encyclopedia, as if the theologian merely excavates the right proof texts, chapter and verse, tallying them up to support a doctrine. Biblicism limits itself to those beliefs explicitly laid down in Scripture and fails to deduce doctrines from Scripture by good and necessary consequence. Continue reading “Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) Does Not Mean Solo Scriptura (Scripture Only – Biblicism)”

More Calvinistic Than Calvin? Invitation to Join the Jury

The book, More Calvinistic Than Calvin? (MCTC) was published in 2023 by a team of local seminary lecturers under the leadership of Bishop Hwa Yung. [The book is available from Canaanland Book Store]. The aim of the book is to refute what it describes as “hardline Calvinism”, and to counter the influence of “hardline Calvinism” among college students in Malaysia.

Dr. Poh Boon Sing of the Reformed Baptist Church (Damansara Utama) has just published a rebuttal of More Calvinistic Than Calvin? on the internet, Beware of the Ecumenical Agenda (BEA) [<–link to file download].

I managed only to give the new book a super quick browse. Will give it a more thorough read after completing some urgent tasks presently.

BEA offers vigorous rebuttals to what it deems to be superficial and unsubstantiated misrepresentations of (hardline) Calvinism as presented by MCTC. Malaysian Christians should read the two books and decide for themselves whether the writers of MCTC and BEA have been fair and accurate in describing the opposing views and evaluate whether the rebuttals from both sides are well-founded and cogent. Continue reading “More Calvinistic Than Calvin? Invitation to Join the Jury”

Liberty and Ability of the Will in the Westminster Confession of Faith

One common criticism leveled against Calvinism is that its teaching of predestination and original sin undermines human freedom and responsibility. A two-fold response is required to set aside this deeply entrenched misconception. First, we are mindful that the best apologetic is a rigorous dogmatics. In this regard, the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) is more than able in defending itself. Chapter 9 of the WCF, “Free Will”, comprises a series of affirmations which together presents a dynamic and coherent view of freedom and human nature in its fourfold state (Pre-Fall innocence, Post-Fall depravity, Regenerate man, Glorified man). A closer reading this chapter clearly shows that the criticism against Calvinism is misguided as it is based on an inadequate, one-dimensional and static concept of human freedom. Second, we need to demonstrate that the Reformed teaching of freedom is coherent (cf. Michael Preciado and Guillaume Bignon on compatibilism) and that predestination (rightly understood) does not undermine human responsibility (cf. John Martin Fisher-Mark Ravizza on responsibility and control). [We will post expositions of the works of these thinkers if the discussion subsequent to this post requires it]. But let us begin with a simple explanation of the Reformed understanding of freedom in layman’s terms.

The Westminster Confession of Faith: CHAPTER 9 Continue reading “Liberty and Ability of the Will in the Westminster Confession of Faith”