fralo4truth
Puritan Board Freshman
Are there any notable Calvinists who deny the double-payment argument set forth by John Owen in his defense of particular redemption? Not that they denied limited atonement, but just didn't feel that this in itself was a sufficient argument for refuting universal redemption.
I just watched a video by James White in which he responds to comments made by Dr. David Allen at the John 3:16 conference. One in the audience had asked about the double-payment argument. Dr. Allen stated that R.L. Dabney, among a few others, denied Owen's argument. He then went on to draw a distinction between corporal debt and penal debt, something this country boy has never heard of, in an attempt to show that Christ could pay one's debt, yet the sinner could still end up making his own payment.
Is this true? Did Dabney disagree with Owen on this? Are there other Calvinists who do so? And if so, what were their arguments? And what is this corporal vs. penal debt distinction?
I just watched a video by James White in which he responds to comments made by Dr. David Allen at the John 3:16 conference. One in the audience had asked about the double-payment argument. Dr. Allen stated that R.L. Dabney, among a few others, denied Owen's argument. He then went on to draw a distinction between corporal debt and penal debt, something this country boy has never heard of, in an attempt to show that Christ could pay one's debt, yet the sinner could still end up making his own payment.
Is this true? Did Dabney disagree with Owen on this? Are there other Calvinists who do so? And if so, what were their arguments? And what is this corporal vs. penal debt distinction?