# Clifford on Owen's Triple Choice



## Jimmy the Greek (Apr 4, 2007)

I apologize in advance for a long post. But I was told that "Those who say Owen has never been answered" have not read A.C. Clifford's _Atonement and Justification_ (Oxford, 1990). Here is an excerpt I found online. Comments from the PB guys here would of interest.

----------
“Under the influence of Aristotle’s teleology and the commercial theory of the atonement, Owen proposes a ‘dilemma to our universalists’ in a powerful piece of reasoning. After stating that there was a qualitative and quantitative ‘sameness’ in the sufferings of Christ and the eternal punishment threatening those for whom he died, Owen affirms, ‘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 of the sins of all men’. This is Owen’s famous ‘triple choice’ position, which, in his view, conclusively settles the controversy in favour of a limited atonement. The last choice is quickly ruled out: if the atonement fails to deal with all sins, then the sinner has something to answer for. The first choice invites Owen’s question, ‘Why, then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins?’ He therefore concludes that the second choice alone fits the case; the atonement is exclusively related to ‘all the sins of some men’.

Owen anticipates the universalist objection that men are only lost through an unbelieving rejection of the atonement. He asks:

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 the sins.

For all its apparent cogency, this compelling argument raises some important problems. It is clear that unbelievers are guilty of rejecting nothing if Christ was not given for them; unbelief surely involves the rejection of a definite provision of grace. It also makes nonsense of the means of grace, depriving general exhortations to believe of all significance.

A further objection arises from an unexpected quarter. In Owen’s view the sufferings of Christ not only deal with the guilt of the believer’s pre-conversion unbelief, they are causally related to the removal of unbelief. But Owen’s pastoral experience taught him that even true believers – or those who have grounds to regard themselves as elect – continue to be plagued with unbelief. Should this be the case if Christ had died to purchase faith for them, or are they perhaps deceived? Owen certainly denies that lapses of unbelief in the elect are not sinful if Christ has paid the penalty for them. Neither would he question the fact that doubting believers fail to participate fully in the subjective blessings Christ’s death has purchased for them. In other words, his argument applies as much to supposed believers as it does to unbelievers, with interesting consequences. For if partial unbelief in a Christian hinders him from enjoying the fullness of those blessings Christ has died to purchase for him, this is no different in principle from saying that total unbelief in a non-Christian hinders him from ‘partaking of the fruit’ Christ’s death makes available for him too.

Basic to Owen’s argument is his theory of the nature of the atonement, which will be discussed in the next chapter. Suffice it to say that making the sufferings of Christ commensurate with the sins of the elect in a quantitative, commercialistic sense explains and reinforces his teleology of the atonement. This was the consideration which led him to modify the sufficiency-efficency distinction. His apparent acceptance of it is really little more than lip-service; his deliberate redefinition of it means that the atonement is only sufficient for those for whom it is efficient. In other words, if the atonement is strictly limited, then the ‘credit facilities’ of the gospel are only available to the elect.

This prevented Owen from seeing that there was an alternative way of dealing with his ‘triple choice’ challenge. For earlier generations of Calvinists the solution was a simple one. Viewing the sufficiency of the atonement in terms of a universal provision of grace, they would embrace the first choice (all the sins of all men) with respect to the atonement’s sufficiency, and the second (all the sins of some men) with respect to its efficiency. As an earlier chapter has demonstrated, the sixteenth-century Reformers taught – both in their writings and in their confessions of the faith – that the atonement was relevant and applicable to all, though it was applied only to the elect. This much is clear: Calvin and his companions believed that the sufferings of Christ were related to the sins of the whole world; men are lost, not for lack of atonement, but for not believing. Unlike Owen, the Reformers had little difficulty in establishing the basis of human guilt. While guilt is undoubtedly defined in terms of transgressing the law, a very significant component of it arises from ungrateful neglect of the gospel remedy. But on Owen’s account, if the atonement relates only to the sins of the elect, then it is doubtful justice to condemn anyone for rejecting what was never applicable to them.

Owen’s acceptance of common grace is surely in conflict with his view of the atonement’s sufficiency, for it implies a broader view than his narrower theory will allow. As a corollary, his acceptance of the ‘free offer’ of the gospel is embarrassed by his strict commercialist position. He does indeed assert that the gospel is to be preached to ‘every creature’ because ‘the way of salvation which it declares is wide enough for all to walk in’. But how can this be if the atonement is really only sufficient for the elect? Calvin and his colleagues had no difficulty in speaking like this, but Owen cannot consistently do so. Not surprisingly, Gill and his fellow hypercalvinists employed the very kind of commercialism espoused by Owen, but did so to deny the validity of universal offers of grace.”

Alan C. Clifford, _Atonement and Justification_ (Oxford, 1990), p. 111-113.


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Apr 4, 2007)

I prefer Jim Packer - http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/packer_intro.html


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Apr 4, 2007)

I too share Packer's sentiments. 

Packer says, "for nobody has a right to dismiss the doctrine of the limitedness, or particularity, of atonement as a monstrosity of Calvinistic logic until he has refuted Owen's proof that it is part of the uniform biblical presentation of redemption, clearly taught in plain text after plain text. And nobody has done that yet."

It is this oft quoted comment by Packer (or one like it) that drew the claim that Clifford has successfully countered Owen. I was hoping for some insightful rebuttal to Clifford from some of the PB community.


----------



## AV1611 (Apr 4, 2007)

Deals with the Clifford et al charge that Calvinists are not the true heirs of Calvin etc. 

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Calvin-Calvinists-Paul-Helm/dp/0851517501"]Amazon.com: Calvin & the Calvinists: Books: Paul Helm[/ame]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Apr 4, 2007)

Have you read Richard Muller or Carl Trueman?

rsc


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Apr 4, 2007)

Well - we have heard it all before! What about http://www.the-highway.com/articleJuly02.html? The author has written a book that can be purchased, see [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Calvin-Calvinists-Paul-Helm/dp/0851517501"]Amazon.com: Calvin & the Calvinists: Books: Paul Helm[/ame]
C H Spurgeon - that greatest of all Baptist Gospel preachers - defended the doctrine of particular redemption, see, e.g., http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&...ement&btnG=Search&sitesearch=www.spurgeon.org

Still unsure about how to insert hyperlinks!


----------



## MW (Apr 4, 2007)

Gomarus said:


> It is clear that unbelievers are guilty of rejecting nothing if Christ was not given for them; unbelief surely involves the rejection of a definite provision of grace.



Is the gospel nothing? Christ is offered in the gospel. He is offered, not as a definite provision of grace, but upon condition that the hearer believe -- faith being considered as a gift of God to the elect alone, which "four point Calvinists" pretend to maintain. Unbelief involves the rejection of the conditional proclamation of grace. "He that believeth not is condemned already," John 3:18. This one statement evinces clearly that Christ has done nothing to procure the salvation of those who are unbelievers to the end.



Gomarus said:


> For if partial unbelief in a Christian hinders him from enjoying the fullness of those blessings Christ has died to purchase for him, this is no different in principle from saying that total unbelief in a non-Christian hinders him from ‘partaking of the fruit’ Christ’s death makes available for him too.



Mr. Clifford does not seem to grasp the importance of Dr. Owen's conviction that Christ's death secures all the blessings of salvation, and that everyone for whom Christ died shall enjoy the fulness of these blessings. Whatever may appear to be the case on earth, where saints still struggle with the remnants of indwelling sin, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ has blessed His elect with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ, Eph. 1:3, 4.

Quite clearly we can only arrive at Mr. Clifford's conclusion if we allow the things which are seen rather than the things which are unseen to dominate our theology. "The things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal," 2 Cor. 4:18. The blessings Christ has purchased for His people are unseen, spiritual, heavenly blessings. They are not temporal, but eternal. Hence the temporal condition of saints on earth is no balance by which to weigh the eternal fruit of Christ's death. Christ died for the wholesale and partial unbelief of His people, which means that they shall not miss the fulness of those eternal blessings He died to purchase. 



Gomarus said:


> Basic to Owen’s argument is his theory of the nature of the atonement, which will be discussed in the next chapter. Suffice it to say that making the sufferings of Christ commensurate with the sins of the elect in a quantitative, commercialistic sense explains and reinforces his teleology of the atonement. This was the consideration which led him to modify the sufficiency-efficency distinction. His apparent acceptance of it is really little more than lip-service; his deliberate redefinition of it means that the atonement is only sufficient for those for whom it is efficient. In other words, if the atonement is strictly limited, then the ‘credit facilities’ of the gospel are only available to the elect.



It would appear that Mr. Clifford is the one who modifies the sufficiency-efficiency distinction. Whereas in reformed theology sufficiency is spoken of as an intrinsic value, Mr. Clifford seeks to give it an extrinsic virtue. He would have the sufiiciency of the atonement to be "for" all men, that is, to stand "in the place" of all men. At which point, he is not speaking of the value of the atonement in and of itself; rather, he is maintaining that the atonement effects something in relation to all men.

Dr. Owen estimates the death of Christ as being infinite in value. If it were the case that each and every man in the world was to be saved by the death of Christ, He would not have been required to suffer any more than He did. This is based on the nature of His person as divine and His passion as exhaustive. But however valuable the atonement is in and of itself, it could effect nothing unless God graciously purposed that it should stand as a substitute for sinners. Therefore, the extrinsic virtue of the death of Christ depends entirely on the electing grace of God.

The four point Calvinist pretends to affirm that there is an election of grace, but it is clear from his teaching on the atonement that he does not maintain the Calvinistic doctrine of election. According to the Calvinistic doctrine, God commends His electing love in that, while His elect were yet sinners, Christ died for them, Rom. 5:8. Herein is electing love, not that the elect chose to love God, but that God chose to love them, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for the sins of the elect, 1 John 4:10. The Calvinistic doctrine of election requires particularism in the whole scheme of salvation because the whole scheme of salvation was contrived as an expression of God's love to the elect.



Gomarus said:


> For earlier generations of Calvinists the solution was a simple one. Viewing the sufficiency of the atonement in terms of a universal provision of grace, they would embrace the first choice (all the sins of all men) with respect to the atonement’s sufficiency, and the second (all the sins of some men) with respect to its efficiency.



It will not do to rewrite history the way one would like it to have happened. The cold, hard fact is that earlier generations maintained the same doctrine as was later espoused by reformed scholasticism. For Dr. Calvin et al. the election of God is everything. No election, no grace. Only a decontextualised reading of the renowned reformer could arrive at the conclusion that he taught anything else. One needs to read the reformer according to the lines of thought he himself expressed: there is the offering of Christ to God and there is the offering of Christ to man. The first is in the atonement and the second is in the gospel. The former accounts for his particularistic language and the latter accounts for his universalistic language. It is only by confounding these two distinct lines of thought that Dr. Calvin can be made to speak in favour of an universal atonement.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Apr 4, 2007)

Ahhh!! Thank you Matthew Winzer! Your assessment of some of Clifford's comments is what I was hoping for.

In the interim, I also found this Oct. 2000 review of Alan C. Clifford, _Calvinus—Authentic Calvinism: A Clarification_ by Jean-Marc Bethoud here:
http://www.kuyper.org/main/uploads/volume_10_no_4.pdf

While not dealing specifically with his arguments against Owen, this is a rather scathing assessment of Clifford's modus operandi.

I am new to the board and apologize if this is seen as


----------



## MW (Apr 4, 2007)

Gomarus said:


> In the interim, I also found this Oct. 2000 review of Alan C. Clifford, _Calvinus—Authentic Calvinism: A Clarification_ by Jean-Marc Bethoud here:
> http://www.kuyper.org/main/uploads/volume_10_no_4.pdf



Highly recommended! There is nothing quite like a French guillotine to put an end to the folly of an Englishman fighting in a foreign legion.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Apr 4, 2007)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Have you read Richard Muller or Carl Trueman?
> 
> rsc



Dr. Clark, Can you direct me to something by Carl Trueman that specifically takes on Clifford??


----------



## bookslover (Apr 5, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Is the gospel nothing? Christ is offered in the gospel. He is offered, not as a definite provision of grace, but upon condition that the hearer believe -- faith being considered as a gift of God to the elect alone, which "four point Calvinists" pretend to maintain. Unbelief involves the rejection of the conditional proclamation of grace. "He that believeth not is condemned already," John 3:18. This one statement evinces clearly that Christ has done nothing to procure the salvation of those who are unbelievers to the end.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Excellent post, Matthew. If one can't trust Owen on the atonement, who _can_ one trust?


----------



## Skeuos Eleos (Apr 5, 2007)

*Historical revisionism or protectionism?*

Well I am a friend of Dr. Clifford and share his theological views and, if nothing else, I will say this: he is one of the most godly men I know. I am reminded that, in puritan times, many books began with a preface commending the book to the reader on account of the godliness of the author, as a measure of its authenticity. Sadly, in our day rationalism substitutes for exegesis and human abilities in logic and rhetoric are prized above Christ-likeness.

Well, much has been said in this post that can be disputed but I’m just not sure whether it will be worth doing so. I sense much prejudice in the comments already offered. Prejudice usually means closed minds. It never ceases to amaze me how people who recognise the significance of the doctrine of total depravity seem unable to recognise how sin affects our ability to engage in honest, open inquiry and creates aneed to be “in the right”. Take the alleged but unsubstantiated (and in my opinion, grossly unfair) charge of historical revisionism for example. To speak of some ‘cold, hard fact’ which allegedly contradicts Clifford does not refute him but merely demonstrates the strength of feeling involved. One wonders what the real reason is that Clifford’s comments are dismissed thus. Consider for a moment: can anyone really claim to have actually read and duly categorised everything that was ever written on this subject in the relevant time period and then produced a verifiable tally showing the clear majority? If not, what could be the basis for such confidence?

Perhaps it will suffice to say that due to incomplete knowledge and the sin which indwells and deceives us all the reality is that we are all historical-revisionists to some extent. We all want the satisfaction of having the big guns on our side. It is the product of the proud, sinful human nature, that ever seeks its ‘functional’ (to borrow a term from Timothy Keller) justification apart from the Lord. If we could only all learn that we, like Paul, can do nothing without grace, apart from Christ and that this _includes _logic and theology we might spend less time hunting for opponents to devour.

I have read enough to know that many with a more balanced view of the sufficiency/efficiency distinction than those trapped in Owen’s re-definition of a mere hypothetical sufficiency, itself the necessary product of his rigid commercialistic categories, were noted for their godliness. The purpose of theology, after all, should always be practical. Give me a godly man who walks close to Christ to lead me and set an example before me before a schoolman any day!

For the glory of Christ and His Church,


----------



## Skeuos Eleos (Apr 5, 2007)

*In whom do we trust?*



bookslover said:


> Excellent post, Matthew. If one can't trust Owen on the atonement, who _can_ one trust?


err, Jesus Christ?The apostle Paul?


----------



## MW (Apr 5, 2007)

Skeuos Eleos said:


> Well, much has been said in this post that can be disputed but I’m just not sure whether it will be worth doing so. I sense much prejudice in the comments already offered. Prejudice usually means closed minds.



I would consider a closed mind one which has already decided interacting with another's arguments are not worth the while. So who is the one displaying prejudice? Mr. Clifford's non-confessional views were given some bandwidth on this confessional forum, and were answered in a confessional way. That is not prejudice, but justice.


----------



## Skeuos Eleos (Apr 5, 2007)

Dr. Clifford wrote:


> It is clear that unbelievers are guilty of rejecting nothing if Christ was not given for them; unbelief surely involves the rejection of a definite provision of grace.



To which Rev. Winzer comments:


armourbearer said:


> Is the gospel nothing?


Ahh but he didn't say the gospel was nothing, you interpreted him thus. In reality I, and I am sure Dr. Clifford, would gladly affirm your subsequent statement that:


armourbearer said:


> Christ is offered in the gospel. He is offered, not as a definite provision of grace, but upon condition that the hearer believe -- faith being considered as a gift of God to the elect alone


But then what follows just further demonstrates both your missunderstanding of our position and your clear preconceived bias:


armourbearer said:


> which "four point Calvinists" pretend to maintain.


Now that is surely an inflammatory remark unbecoming a minster of the gospel! Since I choose to associate with Dr. Clifford I take these remarks as a personal slur and attack. "Four point Calvinist" is an inaccurate and demeaning mischaracterisation and to slanderously allege dishonesty without evidence is a serious matter. We are charged before God to "not let any unwholesome talk come out of (our) mouths but only what is helpful for building others up" (Eph. 4:29). I hesitate to speak thus with a Minister of the gospel but, with respect, I urge you to reconsider your remarks in light of this scripture. 



armourbearer said:


> Unbelief involves the rejection of the conditional proclamation of grace. "He that believeth not is condemned already," John 3:18. This one statement evinces clearly that Christ has done nothing to procure the salvation of those who are unbelievers to the end.


All I can say is that I find it incredible that you can get all of that out of that one statement! It says no such thing. You appear to be completely oblivious to the preconceived notions you bring to the text in order to say that. 

I think I have said enough for now. I have a bad feeling about how this will turn out. I can only hope and pray that the Lord might use my remarks to caution some unsuspecting reader not to accept all that is said just because it is said with obvious strength and feeling. Indeed, when people start out by attacking and labelling others, I always think it is a sure sign to exercise caution when reading what they have to say. 

May grace reign!
Martin


----------



## Skeuos Eleos (Apr 5, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> I would consider a closed mind one which has already decided interacting with another's arguments are not worth the while. So who is the one displaying prejudice?


Sidestep #1



armourbearer said:


> Mr. Clifford's non-confessional views were given some bandwidth on this confessional forum, and were answered in a confessional way. That is not prejudice, but justice.


Sidestep #2

Your reply proves my very point!


----------



## MW (Apr 5, 2007)

Skeuos Eleos said:


> Now that is surely an inflammatory remark unbecoming a minster of the gospel! Since I choose to associate with Dr. Clifford I take these remarks as a personal slur and attack. "Four point Calvinist" is an inaccurate and demeaning mischaracterisation and to slanderously allege dishonesty without evidence is a serious matter. We are charged before God to "not let any unwholesome talk come out of (our) mouths but only what is helpful for building others up" (Eph. 4:29). I hesitate to speak thus with a Minister of the gospel but, with respect, I urge you to reconsider your remarks in light of this scripture.



I express regret to Mr. Clifford and his supporters if the term "four point Calvinist" is seen as "an inflammatory remark." Does he regard himself as a four point Calvinist? Then what is inflammatory about it. Does he deny he is a four point Calvinist? Then the remark does not apply to him and he can safely ignore it.

I am not the one who invented the term, "four point Calvinist." As far as I am concerned one is either a five point Calvinist or he is no Calvinist at all. But some people try to pass themselves off as orthodox by use of the "four point" term. They say they hold to the other four points, but it becomes clear as discussion proceeds that their understanding of the atonement requires them to modify every point of Calvinism.

Faithful ministers of the gospel are required to cast down imaginations and to bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. They are to insist that every man speak truth with his neighbour (Eph. 4:25, just a few sentences prior to the verse you have misapplied). Calling oneself a Calvinist whilst denying the fundamentals of Calvinism is deceit.

Mr. Clifford is no Calvinist in my humble opinion. To maintain universal atonement one must deny that faith is a provision of the atonement, that God has set forth Christ to be a propitiation through faith in His blood. To maintain that Christ is set forth a propitiation for those who shall never believe is a denial of an essential biblical teaching with reference to the atonement. It means there is no atonement at all, but only the possibility of an atonement. Clearly anyone who maintains universal atonement denies the very nature of the atonement as taught by Calvinism, and is therefore no Calvinist.

Now Mr. Clifford and his supporters might find this very grievous to hear, but truth be told, Mr. Clifford has caused tremendous grief to the cause of the biblical gospel as taught by true Calvinists for centuries. His unfounded accusations have caused people to doubt their salvation. The very doctrine he claims to have rediscovered -- the sufficiency of the atonement for all men -- has the exact opposite tendency of making the atonement insufficient to save any man. When believers hear of this, they are led to wonder what it is they must do in order to finish what Christ has only half started. This persuasion cometh not from Him that called them.



Skeuos Eleos said:


> All I can say is that I find it incredible that you can get all of that out of that one statement! It says no such thing. You appear to be completely oblivious to the preconceived notions you bring to the text in order to say that.



They are condemned ALREADY. If they are condemned ALREADY, then Christ has done nothing to save them. Rejecting Christ, they have no part nor lot in His salvific work.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Apr 5, 2007)

*Calvin vs. Owen?*

Greetings:

I must preface this with the statement that I have not read Mr. Clifford's book, but have only read what was posted above. However, I have read what Calvin and Owen have written on the subject of the Atonement. Specifically, Calvin's Institutes, book 2, chapter 16; Owen's, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, and, Of the Death of Christ in Volume 10 of his works.

Consequently, I do not see the wedge that Mr. Clifford is trying to drive between Calvin and Owen. The Atonement of Christ is *offered* to all who hear the gospel preached, but it is *effective* only for the elect. I believe that both Calvin and Owen agree to this effect.

Time does not allow me to continue, but I would be interested in what Mr. Clifford would have to say to that.

Blessings,

_CH


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Apr 6, 2007)

Gomarus said:


> Dr. Clark, Can you direct me to something by Carl Trueman that specifically takes on Clifford??



Yes and no, Carl reviewed Clifford's work on Owen sometime back. I don't recall where it was, but it was a pretty thorough thrashing. It might have been in the WTJ or in Themelios or in the CTJ. I don't know anymore. It was a long time ago. I think he interacts with Alan in his vol on Owen and he has a larger vol on Owen forthcoming.

I know Alan. He's a nice chap, but, frankly, as a matter of historical scholarship, his arguments are not very strong.

The whole Calvin v the Calvinists thing is dead.

The methodological problems are profound, as Muller has demonstrated for 30 years.

I'll point out one: most of the Calvin v Calvinist chappies are really doing dogmatics, not history.

If they want to argue Amyraut on theological/exegetical/dogmatic grounds fine, but on historical grounds (making over Calvin into one of 'em) is a non-starter.

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Apr 6, 2007)

The review/criticisms of AC might be in:

Carl Trueman, ‘John Owen’s Dissertation on Divine Justice: An Exercise in Christocentric Scholasticism’. Calvin Theological Journal 33: 87-103. 

There's an interesting ThM thesis here that surveys the lit:
http://www.johnowen.org/bibliography/

Mason, Matthew W. "The Significance of the Systematic and Polemical Function of Union with Christ in John Owen’s Contribution to Seventeenth Century Debates Concerning Eternal Justification." Th.M. dissertation at Oak Hill Theological College. London, 2005.

i was able to find it via google, but I don't see a link at the John Owen site.

At any rate there's an extensive bibliography there.

It's a PDF.



rsc



R. Scott Clark said:


> Yes and no, Carl reviewed Clifford's work on Owen sometime back. I don't recall where it was, but it was a pretty thorough thrashing. It might have been in the WTJ or in Themelios or in the CTJ. I don't know anymore. It was a long time ago. I think he interacts with Alan in his vol on Owen and he has a larger vol on Owen forthcoming.
> 
> I know Alan. He's a nice chap, but, frankly, as a matter of historical scholarship, his arguments are not very strong.
> 
> ...


----------



## Skeuos Eleos (Apr 6, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> I express regret to Mr. Clifford and his supporters if the term "four point Calvinist" is seen as "an inflammatory remark." Does he regard himself as a four point Calvinist? Then what is inflammatory about it. Does he deny he is a four point Calvinist? Then the remark does not apply to him and he can safely ignore it.


So here, at least, you implicitly acknowledge that you are not fully conversant with the Reverend Dr. Clifford's position. All well and good and perhaps we may be able to discuss it further but there will be no point in doing so until you deal with my first post. For all we have established so far is that 1. you don't really understand our position; yet, 2. you are strongly against it, feeling the need to make accusations and use condescending labels; and, therefore, 3. your mind is made up such that there is little point in further discussion until you are prepared to humbly admit before the Lord that you _could _be wrong and that you are _truly _prepared for the Lord to teach you *even *if it means discarding cherished theories and losing face before man. 



armourbearer said:


> just a few sentences prior to the verse you have misapplied


Misapplied? You slanderously accuse us of pretension (without any evidence). By doing so you caused me to stumble and sin in my initial thoughts as to how to respond, ergo, I have not been built up, ergo, you have spoken in a way which is contrary to Eph. 4:29. And I note you have yet to apologise. 



armourbearer said:


> Calling oneself a Calvinist whilst denying the fundamentals of Calvinism is deceit.


What pointless question-begging nonsense. You know very well that both sides of this discussion claim to have Calvin on their side. And what word shall we use to describe making unsubstantiated accusations against a position you don't understand? I suggest you really need to ask yourself why you feel the need to say these things. 



armourbearer said:


> Mr. Clifford is no Calvinist in my humble opinion.


Well, since we have established that you don't actually understand his position, we have also established that, in this regard, your opinion doesn't actually count for much. 


Well, there are so many other things that you and others have said that need refuting but I fear posts are appearing faster than I can respond!

Grace and peace,


----------



## Skeuos Eleos (Apr 6, 2007)

*More on closed minds*

Gomarus, it is evident that you must have found some force to the arguments advanced by Clifford. But then you come here looking for help in refuting him. Does that not demonstrate how your mind is already made up on this matter? Tell me, have you read his entire book and actually understood his entire argument or have you just picked this up from somebody's web site? 

Dieter, the turth is determined as a matter of personal preference is it? Or, in reality, have you too got an emotional investment in a system you must protect?

Bookslover, why is this such a concern for you? Do you get your sense of security from knowing that you are in-line with Owen? Did Owen write scripture? What drives your need to be able to rely upon him?

Dr. Clark, your comments demonstrate your prejudices. Thrashed? Hardly, and Dr Muller has admitted as much. Perhaps most telling of all though, is Trueman's own admission that Owen's case couldn't be established by_sola scriptura_. 

Why are everybody's minds so closed up to this subject?

Soli Deo Gloria,
Martin


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Apr 6, 2007)

Hey Martin:

Saying that someone does not understand my position is not necessarily their fault. The blame may fall more on you (or, Mr. Clifford in this instance) for not being clear. If your position contains subtleties that go beyond the pale of plain language, then it is your responsiblity to point this out, and not accuse others of misunderstanding.

I think I asked a perfectly reasonable question for you, or Mr. Clifford, to answer: That is, can you illustrate the nature of the "wedge" you wish to drive between Calvin and Owen?

What I would like to see from you and Mr. Clifford are actual quotes that show there is a wedge between Calvin and Owen.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Skeuos Eleos (Apr 7, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hey Martin:
> 
> Saying that someone does not understand my position is not necessarily their fault. The blame may fall more on you (or, Mr. Clifford in this instance) for not being clear. If your position contains subtleties that go beyond the pale of plain language, then it is your responsiblity to point this out, and not accuse others of misunderstanding.
> 
> ...


Robert,

I'm sorry I hadn't got round to answering your original question. Just to clarify, I'm not taking issue with folk for not understanding the position I'm simply trying to get people to see that they come to the discussion with such strong preconceived ideas and prejudices that there would be little point in going in to the subtelties until they are prepared to be more open minded. I myself used to be very high in my 'calvinism' and would argue similarly against those holding lower views than my own. I began reading Timothy Keller and others like him and began to see how, in seeking a sense of security in our faith, we tend to smuggle in a reliance upon our doctrines rather than building it entirely upon the Lord and how this leads us to get very defensive as a challenge to what we perceive to be our core doctrines becomes a challenge to our faith. It was only when someone challenged to me examine my motives that the Lord enabled me to see that when I was presented with such a challenge I was automatically looking for ways to refute it without ever being prepared to submit to the Lord and let Him teach me. As Keller would say: we are far more sinful than we imagine. We need grace to develop humility and faith in us even as we approach theological discussions.

As for your original question: I'm sure Dr. Clifford would affirm that as far as it goes but would argue that it doesn't go far enough raising questions about _what _is being offered. I will not have time to respond further for a few days now but in the meantime I offer this further comment from Neil Chambers in his ThM thesis (available from www.tren.com):


> What needs to be seen is that Owen’s argument defeats itself by proving too much. If, in Owen’s terms, Christ died for all the sins of some people, the elect, then he must also have died for their unbelief, where ‘died for’ is understood to mean having paid the penalty for all their sins at Calvary. If this is the case, then why are the elect not saved at Calvary? If Owen replies that it is because the benefits of Christ’s death are not yet applied to them, then I would ask what it means for those benefits not to be applied to them? Surely it means that they are unbelieving, and therefore cannot be spoken of as saved. But they cannot be punished for that unbelief, as its penalty has been paid and God, as Owen assures us, will not exact a second penalty for the one offense. If then, even in their unbelief, there is no debt against them, no penalty to be paid, surely they can be described as saved, and saved at Calvary. That being the case, the gospel is reduced to a cipher, a form of informing the saved of their blessed condition.
> 
> These last two conclusions are positions that Owen would deny, for he is committed to the necessity and integrity of the universal gospel call and the indissoluble bond between faith and salvation. There is then a real tension in Owen’s position brought about by a number of factors. The first is what might be called polemical reductionism in his consideration of ‘unbelief’ here, for unbelief is not just an offense like any other, it is also a state, which must be dealt with not only by forgiveness but by regeneration. Owen recognises this in relating the cross to the causal removal of unbelief as a state, but unbelief regarded as a sin and unbelief as a state bear a different relation to the cross. Sin bears a direct relation to the cross, which is the enduring of the penalty for sin; the change of state an indirect relation, dependent upon preaching and regeneration by the Spirit. To acknowledge that reality Owen would have to say that Christ died for all the sin, including the unbelief, of those who believe, and for none of the sins of those who won’t believe. But for polemical force he ignores the distinction which might seem, in its introduction of belief and unbelief, to place too much weight on human response and exposes his argument to criticism.
> Chambers, Neil Andrew, _A Critical Examination of John Owen's Argument for Limited Atonement in "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ"_, ThM Thesis, RTS, 1998



Regards,


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Apr 7, 2007)

Hi:

Thank you for that kind reply. I find this objection to be very interesting, and it did remind me of something I read in Owen's Death of Death. If I may I will quote it below:

*For instance: God decreed from eternity that he would make the world, yet we know the world was not made until about five thousand five hundred years ago. But ye will say, "It was made in God's purpose." That is, say I, he purposed to make it. So he purposeth there shall be a day of judgment; is there therefore actually a universal day of judgment already? God purposeth that he will, in and through Christ, justify and save such and such certain persons; are they therefore justified because God purposeth it? It is ture, they shall be so, because he hath purposed it; but that they are so is denied. The consequence is good from the divine purpose to the futurition of any thing, and the certainty of its event, not to the actual existence. As when the Lord, in the beginning, went actually to make the world, there was no world; so when he comes to bestow faith and actually to justify a man, until he hath so done he is not justified,* Works, vol. 10, pg. 276.

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## Skeuos Eleos (Apr 7, 2007)

*Further examination of the argument*

For all who are prepared to prayerfully consider this matter, I note that David Ponter has posted some very interesting remarks about this discussion over at Theologyonline which further show the problems with both Owen's and Matthew Winzer's arguments.

Grace and Peace,


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Apr 7, 2007)

> Dr. Clark, your comments demonstrate your prejudices. Thrashed? Hardly, and Dr Muller has admitted as much. Perhaps most telling of all though, is Trueman's own admission that Owen's case couldn't be established by_sola scriptura_.
> 
> Why are everybody's minds so closed up to this subject?
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE]

Martin,

I'm not a bigot. I've read and rejected his arguments on their merits. As I recall his first book he says something to the effect that, "I'm building on RT Kendall's case..."

Well, I've read and rejected R T Kendall's arguments on their merits or lack thereof.

Do I really have to list the criticisms of Kendall again? See Mark Dever's work on Sibbes for just one example. 

This argument is very old (i.e., hundreds of years!) and has been settled, unless radical new evidence is forthcoming. Alan didn't bring any of that.

What he offered were a series of unhistorical, tendentious arguments.

Have you read Muller's work? Have you the Trueman/Clark ed _Protestant Scholasticism_? If not, why are you not guilty of bigotry and a closed mind?

Do you assume that it's impossible for a rational person to disagree with Alan?

I have no idea what you're saying about Muller and Trueman. Can you explain?

rsc


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Apr 7, 2007)

Ahhh! Here is the point:

David Ponter writes:



> If belief has to follow from Christ’s dying for all my unbelief, then how is it a Christian can have any unbelief?



Justification is forensic and complete. Sanctification is subjective and incomplete in this life. As Paul writes in Romans 7:

*For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing, for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not, but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, which I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I think God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin,* vss. 18-25.

A Christian is not fully sanctified (Glorified) until he/she reaches Heaven. Until then, the old heart of unbelief will always strive against the new heart of faith.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Apr 10, 2007)

*Justification and Sanctification*

Greetings:

In response to my post #28 above Mr. Ponter has produced what appears to be the major objection to Owen's argument when he writes:



> The critical sentence from Clifford is still this, as I see it:
> 
> “For if partial unbelief in a Christian hinders him from enjoying the fullness of those blessings Christ has died to purchase for him, this is no different in principle from saying that total unbelief in a non-Christian hinders him from ‘partaking of the fruit’ Christ’s death makes available for him too.”
> 
> At the end of the day, Owen would have say that just as God sovereignly delays the justification of a given elect, he sovereignly delays the full impartation of the blessings in Christ in the life of the believer. Of course that gets tricky too, as on the surface it makes God looks a little mean. But then we all have to come back to the point that God sovereignly permits sin, and in some cases wisely chooses not to overcome sin in the life of a given person.


The difference as I see it, and I believe that Owen would agree, is that in a believer his/her unbelief is dealt with by God as a Father deals with His own children:



> Heb 12:5 And ye have forgotten the consolation, which speaketh vnto you as vnto children, My son, despise not the chastening of the Lord, neither faint when thou art rebuked of him.
> Heb 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth, he chasteneth: and he scourgeth every sonn that he receiveth:
> Heb 12:7 If ye endure chastening, God offereth himself unto you as unto sons: for what son is it whom the father chasteneth not?
> Heb 12:8 If therefore ye be without correction, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
> ...



In his Commentary On Hebrews (chapter 12:8) Owen writes:



> The rule which the apostle hath laid down concerning chastisements, as a necessary, inseparable adjunct of the relation between father and son, is so certain in nature and grace, that to the inference which he hath made on the one hand unto the evidence of sonship from them, he adds here another no less unto his purpose on the other; namely, that those who have no chastisements are no sons, no children...
> 
> ...And we may hence observe, -
> 
> ...


And, Calvin, writing in his Institutes of the Christian Religion:


> Thus he rightly says that if we are without discipline we are illegitimate children, not sons [Heb. 12:8]. We are, then, most perverse if when he declares his benevolence to us and the care that he takes for our salvation, we cannot bear him. Scripture teaches that this is the difference between unbelievers and believers: the former, like slaves of inveterate and double-dyed wickedness, with chastisement become only worse and more obstinate. But the latter, like freeborn sons, attain repentance. Now you must choose in which group you would prefer to be numbered, Westminster Press, vol. 1, pg. 706,707. Book 3, chapter 18, section 6.


I believe that both Owen and Calvin would say that, though both the believer and unbeliever receive "punishment" for their unbelief, the punishment they receive is of a different kind and produces different results.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## MW (Apr 10, 2007)

Skeuos Eleos said:


> For all who are prepared to prayerfully consider this matter, I note that David Ponter has posted some very interesting remarks about this discussion over at Theologyonline which further show the problems with both Owen's and Matthew Winzer's arguments.



David Ponter opines:



> Unbelief can void some of the applied benefits of the redemption in some sense.



Poor man! he can't distinguish between the benefits of Christ's death and the effects of these benefits. If the benefits could be made void by a believer's partial unbelief then Christ would have died in vain. The only problem Mr. Ponter has managed to show is the one we find imposing itself on the Galatian church -- a dreaded doubt as to the all-sufficient work of Christ in saving His people from their sins. Who has bewitched him? Not Mr. Clifford, I hope.


----------



## MW (Apr 10, 2007)

From David Ponter:



> In actual fact, it does seem that Winzer has missed Clifford’s point almost entirely. Does he really want to imply that not all our faith was purchased by the death of Christ?



Quite clearly Mr. Ponter is confused about who says what. Dr. Owen affirms faith was purchased by the death of Christ because the death of Christ purchased a perfect salvation. Mr. Clifford denies it, and sets forth the specious reasoning that Christians do not exercise perfect faith in this life. I reply, perfection is a benefit of Christ's death, but it is not enjoyed in the temporal sphere. The fact that it is not enjoyed in the temporal sphere does not make it any less real, as Mr. Clifford seems to imagine. Christ has accomplished even the glorification of believers, according to Eph. 2:6 and Rom. 8:30. We do not look at the things which are seen but the things which are unseen. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. It is not the measure of faith, but the measure of the object upon which faith is exercised, that is all-important. Hence, while faith itself is not perfect in this life, the salvation which is by faith is perfect. This is basic inaugurated eschatology!

Now what does Mr. Ponter do? He attempts to turn our attention away from the object of faith to the exercise of faith itself. He would quantify salvation in terms of faith and make the measure of faith the real thing upon which salvation depends. He supposes that because faith is not perfect in this life then believers do not have a perfect salvation. As in the case of Mr. Clifford, Mr. Ponter's theological method looks to the things which are seen rather than the things which are unseen. Why can they not see what the Bible so clearly teaches -- that Christ has purchased eternal life? This is life in perfection, life which endures for ever. Whosoever believeth in Him hath everlasting life. No, the faith whereby we look to Christ is not perfect in this life; but the Christ to whom we look by faith is perfect yesterday, and today, and for ever.


----------



## Skeuos Eleos (Apr 11, 2007)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Martin,
> 
> I'm not a bigot. I've read and rejected his arguments on their merits. As I recall his first book he says something to the effect that, "I'm building on RT Kendall's case..."
> 
> ...


I am sorry, I did not mean to imply that at all. My comment stemmed from the use of the word 'thrashed' which does, nevertheless, at least imply a bias. Perhaps I over-reacted a little having being provoked somewhat by the contentious and sectarian spirit of Matthew Winzer's earlier comments. 

However, it is not true to say that Clifford builds his case on Kendal. All Dr. Clifford says is that, having *already and independently *become convinced that there were "historical, philosophical, theological and exegetical grounds on which to question certain dogmatic details of the neo-Calvinist revival" he found confirmation for *his *conclusions in Kendall - not that he necessarily supports Kendall's entire thesis (Clifford, A.C., _Atonement and Justification_, p vii). In fact, later in the book, he goes on to criticise Kendall several times (pp 84,85,183, 94 & 239 (and thereby answering Helm's criticisms in respect of the last two)). Whatever other reasons you have for rejecting his arguments, I hope that little misunderstanding did not further influence your conclusions. 

Well, you will not be surprised to note that not everyone accepts that the historical question has been resolved in favour of strict limited atonement. Arguably a neutral observer might say that 'history' seems to depend upon which side of the argument one takes! It would seem from a comment in Roger Nicole's 1985 WTJ article that he and Curt Daniel would say the same. And this is my point: presuppositions seem to abound in this subject area and the historical question has only been settled in the minds of those already holding certain presuppositions. 

Anyway I don't think there is anything to be gained by trying to progress the historical question here and that was not my reason for posting anyway. My reason for posting was only to try to get people to be a little more self-aware and less dismissive or condescending. 

As for tendentious, well why, from my perspective, can I not say that is equally true of all that Helm, Nicole, Trueman, Rainbow _et al _have written on the subject?

Regarding the suggestion that my own mind is closed. Well no doubt this is true of us all to some extent or other but I would say two things here:
1. I readily admit that I have not read all there is to read on this subject but precisely for that reason I do strive to remind myself to keep my mind open to new arguments and therefore endeavour not to be so dogmatic or dismissive in what I say;
2. On the other hand I would say that I have the 'advantage' of having once been a 'high Calvinist' and therefore I better understand the position I am rejecting more than those who consistenly mislabel and attack ours. From all that I have read so far, rejection of our more moderate position nearly always seems to proceed from a position of misunderstanding it (e.g. witness how it is commonly labelled as so-called "four-point Calvinism"). I think the problem is that a paradigm shift in thinking is involved. As Clifford says in his response to Trueman in his biography on Doddridge (Clifford, A.C., _The Good Doctor: Philip Doddridge of Northampton - A Tercentenary Tribute_, Charenton Reformed Publishing, 2002. P253), Trueman has "failed to grasp the philosophical details" of his case. I have commented already as to why I think people's prejudices affect their thinking. Incidentally, I have yet to meet a single person move from a proper understand of our position to a more strict limited position, all the traffic is in the other direction. I think that underscores the point about the paradigm shift in thinking.

As for the remarks about Muller and Trueman, well Clifford reports that Dr. Muller implied that Trueman hadn't defeated him in an email to a friend in the appendix of _The Good Doctor _(p253) and that, in his _The Claims of Truth_ (27, n. 57 (cont), 93), Trueman says:


> it would be inaccurate to interpret the protestant notion of _sola scriptura _in such a way as to regard it as a sufficient safeguard in and of itself to safeguard the church against heresy in the seventeenth-century context. In fact, Owen's defence of orthodox Christology in the face of radically Biblicist attacks of the Socinians clearly depends upon setting the notion of _sola scriptura _and scriptural exegesis within the ongoing catholic theological tradition."


I reject such a definition which, in effect, is a denial of the sufficiency of scripture.

Regards,
Martin


----------



## Skeuos Eleos (Apr 11, 2007)

*Owen not bulletproof*

Well I'm afraid that family concerns mean that I will have little time for further interaction here. In any case there are others far more able on this subject than me. Another excellent source of relevant quotes and well-written and careful comments may be found here (start at the beginning!).

My main concern has been to urge people not to be so dismissive and to be more aware that we tend to approach arguments against a position which we hold dear with a mindset bent on finding a way to refute it rather than to weigh it objectively. On that note and to close I see that Matthew and Robert have made further comments which David Ponter has, in turn, addressed here. No doubt someone with too high a vested interest may still find some even more circuitious way to respond but the careful reader must surely admit that Owen's argument is not 'bulletproof'. That is all that needs to be established here. All-too-often, the case for a strictly limited view of the atonement is pressed using Owen's argument. Might that be indicative of the difficulty of establishing the case on _sola scriptura_? Certainly those Calvinists who embraced Limited Atonement solely on the basis of Owen's trilemma ought to honestly re-examine the biblical data. 

Sola Scriptura!
Martin


----------



## MW (Apr 11, 2007)

I don't believe Owen ever would have thought his argument was 'bulletproof.' It does not need to be. Owen goes straight over to the offender and removes the gun from his hand. That is really what frustrates men who do not believe the biblical gospel that Christ died to purchase salvation. They don't have anything of any significance with which to threaten the orthodox faith. Like wolves barking at the moon.

The case for limited atonement is well established on the Scriptures alone. The problem is that men who reject the doctrine do so on speculative grounds, suggesting that Christ might have died in two contradictory senses -- one for the elect and one for all men. At which point the defender of the faith must show the foolishness of such speculations.

As for Mr. Ponter's reply, I agree it will be very convincing to a person who thinks either that one must have perfect faith in order to receive a perfect salvation, or that a believer might fall into total unbelief. But nobody who holds to the reformed faith would believe such nonsense. It is not faith which saves us, but the One to whom faith looks. And that One is merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth. He accepts a mustard-seed of faith as true faith. The bruised reed He will not break and the smoking flax He will not quench. So notwithstanding the fact that believers might fall into partial unbelief and hardness, nevertheless, "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? Behold, I have received commandment to bless: and he hath blessed; and I cannot reverse it. *He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel:* the LORD his God is with him, and the shout of a king is among them" (Numb. 23:19-21).


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 11, 2007)

It has come to my attention that this thread, which was fine in its original form, has come to violate one of our standing policies, which is to avoid cross-boarding posts and internet feuds. Remember that we are not a blog, but a discussion forum, where we converse principally among ourselves. Make reference to published material, quote it if you want (include links so as not to raise issues of "context"), but do not "interact" here with men who then "reply" in another place, and back and forth.

I am not pointing fingers. I recognize that this may have begun with an "off-board" response to this board, and men may feel a desire to "answer". But we need to be consistent. So, peace brethren.


----------

