Soteriology

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”

The Arminian Conversion Prayer

[responsivevoice_button]

Free-Will – A Slave
“And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.”—John 5:40

Excerpt from Spurgeon’s Sermon: Free Will—A Slave

IV. This brings us to the fourth point, THAT BY NATURE NO MAN WILL COME TO CHRIST,

It is true of all men in their natural condition that they will not come unto Christ.

The Son of God came, yet men rejected him. “Ye will not come to me that ye might have life.” It would take too much time to mention any more Scripture proofs. We will, however, refer to the great doctrine of the fall. Any one who believes that man’s will is entirely free,¹ and that he can be saved by it, does not believe the fall.

…Your fallen nature was put out of order; your will, amongst other things, has clean gone astray from God. But I tell you what will be the best proof of that; it is the great fact that you never did meet a Christian in your life who ever said he came to Christ without Christ coming to him. You have heard a great many Arminian sermons, I dare say; but you never heard an Arminian prayer – for the saints in prayer appear as one in word, and deed and mind. An Arminian on his knees would pray desperately like a Calvinist. He cannot pray about free-will: there is no room for it. Fancy him praying, Continue reading “The Arminian Conversion Prayer”

1
Clarification – Spurgeon has earlier contrasted “Free will” with “Free Agency”, stating, “Free agency we may believe in, but free-will is simply ridiculous. The will is well known by all to be directed by the understanding, to be moved by motives, to be guided by other parts of the soul, and to be a secondary thing. Philosophy and religion both discard at once the very thought of free-will; and I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion of his, where he says, “If any man doth ascribe aught of salvation, even the very least, to the free-will of man [paraphrase – If anyone credits human free will with any part of their salvation, even the smallest amount], he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright.”

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”

Van Dyke’s “Joyful Joyful We Adore Thee” is (Religious) Universalistic. A Rejoinder

I have already left behind my thoughts on van Dyke’s hymn posted several days ago & moved on to other issues. Re: Loud Music in Church Worship? However I received two challenges to my understanding of van Dyke’s hymn.

Both essentially argue that I am unjustifiably over-reading & attributing universalistic elements (“eisegesis rather than exegesis!”). Even if it is granted that my theological “rebuttals” in content are correct BUT “there is no such intent in this case. If you assume Van Dyke wrote this with the intention that it be sung by believers, everything is pretty sound.”

My Response:
First, I am not legislating whether someone may or may not sing van Dyke’s hymn. Continue reading “Van Dyke’s “Joyful Joyful We Adore Thee” is (Religious) Universalistic. A Rejoinder”

How Does A Triune God Have Mercy Since No One Within The Triune Godhead Needs Mercy?

I received this question in the mail last week.
QUESTION
Some Christian apologists question how Allah could be a God of love if he is absolute oneness or monadic. Who could he love before creation? In contrast, the Christian God is triune. Thus, the persons in the Trinity can love one another. This led me to reflect on another attribute of God, that is, his mercy. How does our triune God have mercy since no one within the triune Godhead needs mercy?

MY ANSWER
To your question whether the triune God had MERCY before creation – the answer is YES. God’s mercy is manifested in the Triune Covenant of Redemption.

First let me affirm your initial proposition that love is found in the triune God. Augustine, the great Christian philosopher in 5C AD shares an amazing insight which helps us grasp fully what the bible means in declaring that God is love (1 John 4:16). He explains how love is a trinity. Continue reading “How Does A Triune God Have Mercy Since No One Within The Triune Godhead Needs Mercy?”

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”

N.T. Wright-Scot McKnight-Matthew Bates New Perspective on Faith and Salvation

Debates about justification and New Perspective on Paul (NPP) seemed to have quietened down for a while, but recently the debates have received new impetus with the publication of three books by Matthew Bates – Salvation by Allegiance Alone, [SAA] Gospel Allegiance [GA] and Beyond the Salvation Wars [BSW]. It is undeniable that the teachings of the NPP (represented by N.T. Wright-Scot McKnight-Matthew Bates) are in conflict with the doctrine of justification and salvation taught in the historic Confessions of the Reformation. However, Bates writes, “Yet the creeds are not good stand-alone teaching tools about the gospel without an intervening reframing. The biblical and apostolic gospel relentlessly emphasizes Jesus’s messianic kingship—and this is muted in the creeds. Furthermore, creeds are doctrinal statements that invite intellectual affirmation – belief – more than allegiance.” [BSW54] Apparently, Bates seeks to intervene, reframe (and revise) the historic Reformation teaching of salvation based on his new perspective on faith and salvation, that is, salvation is by allegiance to Christ the king. Continue reading “N.T. Wright-Scot McKnight-Matthew Bates New Perspective on Faith and Salvation”