Clifford on Owen's Triple Choice

[MW]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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.