John Owen and Double Payment

[Penfold]

25 years ago I was greatly impressed by John Owen's argument about "all the sins of all men, some of the sins of all men or all the sins of some men." After many years of struggle with the double payment dilemma (payment God will not twice demand etc.) I finally concluded that the double payment dilemma was a red herring that obscured the real meaning of the work of Christ on the cross. I wrote my conclusions in an article at http://www.webtruth.org/articles-det...47&group_id=24
If anyone would care to have a read of this and critique it I would be interested in your comments.

[Ugly_Gaunt_Cow]

You stated in your article:

"If a sinner refuses to repent"

I think I know what this means, but could you clear it up for me. I'm kind of dull and have a hard time making sense of the plain things people say.

Thanks.

Scott.

[Ugly_Gaunt_Cow]

cool site btw...

[mlqurgw]

I have heard all these arguments before and they are a vain attempt to show that Christ didn't actually save anyone but only made salvation possible upon condition of repentance and faith. It is nonsense and puts salvation in the hands of the sinner instead of the work of Christ on the cross. I do not have the time right now to respond to each point made so I will just leave you with my general response.

[Brandan Kraft]

Pretty pathetic arguments Penfold...

[Penfold]

When I was a teenager I found the logic of Owen's argument very convincing. I used to have it pinned to the wall of my study. You know the way it goes..."All the sins of all men, some of the sins of all men, all of the sins of some met" etc. There's something about the 'logic' of Calvinism that appeals to intellectual young men.

After 25 years of investigation into Calvinism I still can't believe how blinded I was not to realise that Owen's argument cuts both ways. A simple analysis reveals that the entire ‘double payment’ argument is holed below the water-line. Indeed, it collapses under the weight of its own logic. Consider: did the wrath of God abide on the apostle Paul before he believed (John 3:36)? Was he an enemy of God prior to salvation (Rom 5:10)? Was he seen as guilty before God (Rom 3:19)? How so, if Christ had already made payment for his sins to the utmost farthing? The classic double payment ditty winds up teaching that the elect are never lost, even before they are saved.

There's no answer to this...except to engage in name calling (e.g. 'pretty pathetic arguments Penfold'!

[Brandan Kraft]

God has never hated the elect. His wrath has never abided on the elect. Why is this a bad thing?

[mlqurgw]

When I was a teenager I found the logic of Owen's argument very convincing. I used to have it pinned to the wall of my study. You know the way it goes..."All the sins of all men, some of the sins of all men, all of the sins of some met" etc. There's something about the 'logic' of Calvinism that appeals to intellectual young men.

After 25 years of investigation into Calvinism I still can't believe how blinded I was not to realise that Owen's argument cuts both ways. A simple analysis reveals that the entire ‘double payment’ argument is holed below the water-line. Indeed, it collapses under the weight of its own logic. Consider: did the wrath of God abide on the apostle Paul before he believed (John 3:36)? Was he an enemy of God prior to salvation (Rom 5:10)? Was he seen as guilty before God (Rom 3:19)? How so, if Christ had already made payment for his sins to the utmost farthing? The classic double payment ditty winds up teaching that the elect are never lost, even before they are saved.

There's no answer to this...except to engage in name calling (e.g. 'pretty pathetic arguments Penfold'!

I made a promise to give my full attention to something else but I couldn't let this pass. This logic you seem to espouse would mean that everytime a sinner believes in Christ He would have to dies again. I was not alive when Christ died, were you? If my sin was on Him at the cross then I was saved at that time. I had no idea of it until God revealed it to me by the Gospel. There is a difference in the actual salvation for the chosen sinner and the experience of it.

[Penfold]

Interesting stuff. Darth Gill says that God's wrath has never abided (sic) on the elect. Yet John 3:36 states that the wrath of God abides on the unbeliever. All the elect were once unbelievers - so there goes Darth's logic

Mlqurgw doesn't answer the question. Perhaps I should rephrase it to make it clear. If payment for your sins was made at the cross and 'Payment God will not twice demand' (Toplady), in your pre-conversion days were your sins held against you? If so why?

[Brandan Kraft]

Jn 3:36 also says those who do not believe will never see life. So that means they will never believe, eh? Penfold, that "prooftext" of yours is very weak. It's not referring to a "STATE" of unbelief. A man's belief has nothing to do with whether or not God loves him. Those who die never believing the Gospel evidence themselves to be objects of God's wrath. Those who die believing the Gospel evidence themselves to be objects of God's love and thus recipients of everlasting life.

[Penfold]

Abides in John 3:16 is in the present tense. Each unbeliver in the world at this moment of time has the wrath of God abiding on them (John 3:36). They are also enemies of God alienated by wicked works, their sins are an affront to God's throne and their heart is in a state of rebellion against him. Yet some of them are elect and will be converted at a future date.

Since they are elect and their sins were fully paid for 2,000 years ago, how come God current holds their sins against them and counts them as enemies.

Paul said to the Colossians, "And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled" (Col 1:21).

How come God held these elect folk (whose sin and rebellion He had already paid for) as enemies?

[mlqurgw]

Interesting stuff. Darth Gill says that God's wrath has never abided (sic) on the elect. Yet John 3:36 states that the wrath of God abides on the unbeliever. All the elect were once unbelievers - so there goes Darth's logic

Mlqurgw doesn't answer the question. Perhaps I should rephrase it to make it clear. If payment for your sins was made at the cross and 'Payment God will not twice demand' (Toplady), in your pre-conversion days were your sins held against you? If so why?

I believe I did answer the quesion you just chose to ignore it. In my pre-conversion days my sins were not held against me because Christ had already died for me and made an atonement for my sin. I just had no knowledge of it. As far as I was concerned I was a child of wrath even as others. My sin was not laid on Christ when I believed but when He died. God has never dealt with His elect as sinners. If that were the case He would have to hate them at some point but change His hatred to love when they believe or when Christ died. Psa. 5:5 Christ is the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world and God gave me grace in Christ Jesus before the world began. 2Tim. 1:9 Salvation was accomplished in the purpose of God in eternity, actually accomplished in time at the cross and applied to my heart at conversion. No double payment. I do believe in eternal justification.

[mlqurgw]

Perhaps your problem lies in the Suretyship of Christ. He didn't just obligate Himself to pay our debt as in a co-signer but took on the whole thing and because He did we must go free. God cannot demand part of the payment from Him and part from us. The question is when did He become my Surety?

[mlqurgw]

Abides in John 3:16 is in the present tense. Each unbeliver in the world at this moment of time has the wrath of God abiding on them (John 3:36). They are also enemies of God alienated by wicked works, their sins are an affront to God's throne and their heart is in a state of rebellion against him. Yet some of them are elect and will be converted at a future date.

Since they are elect and their sins were fully paid for 2,000 years ago, how come God current holds their sins against them and counts them as enemies.

Paul said to the Colossians, "And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled" (Col 1:21).

How come God held these elect folk (whose sin and rebellion He had already paid for) as enemies?

It does not say in God's mind but in yours.

[GraceAmbassador]

Abides in John 3:16 is in the present tense. Each unbeliver in the world at this moment of time has the wrath of God abiding on them (John 3:36). They are also enemies of God alienated by wicked works, their sins are an affront to God's throne and their heart is in a state of rebellion against him. Yet some of them are elect and will be converted at a future date.

Since they are elect and their sins were fully paid for 2,000 years ago, how come God current holds their sins against them and counts them as enemies.

Paul said to the Colossians, "And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled" (Col 1:21).

How come God held these elect folk (whose sin and rebellion He had already paid for) as enemies?

Penfold:

I hope you can find some Biblical balance in your argument; I hope you know that any truth that is not balanced with the whole truth is error.

Check this verse and comment in it if you wish; I don't want to have a protracted participation in this thread, but I trust you will check this out openly:

Romans 5:8

But God commendeth His love towards US (the elect), in that while we were YET SINNERS Christ died for us.

We can have all kinds of interpretations about this verse, but it shows that the "commending" of His love, or PROOF, that would be a better translation, and His LOVE occurred during the period we were yet sinners. So God loved the elect while they, US, were yet unbelievers.

I can perfectly understand your point about God's wrath directed to those who were "alienated" from him, and the fact that Paul says that we were "once children of wrath". But if you consider the "application" (for lack of a better word) of the term "wrath" as it pertains to the unconverted elect in context with Paul's teaching, you will notice that it was akin to the wrath of a father against a wayward son. It is not the same wrath He dispensed against the reprobate. He called us "lost sheep", "sheep of His pasture", Jesus said that "His sheep" will hear His voice, and that we would be brought back to the fold. In the Parable of the Prodigal Son, we are compared to a drifting son, who for the entire period he was away from the father, he remained a beloved son.

Well, you seem to be reasonable, so please consider the points above as well before determining that God is "mutable" since He once hated us and was wrathful against us and then changed to loving us...

Just my very humble opinion.

Milt

[Mickey]

Penfold, In John 3:16 who did God love that He sent His Son? Does God love everyone in the world and hate them at the same time?

[GraceAmbassador]

Penfold, In John 3:16 who did God love that He sent His Son? Does God love everyone in the world and hate them at the same time?

Well, Mike, you got my prompt in my post above! When analyzing scriptures about God's wrath and love towards the elect, when faced with God's immutability, there will be always the possibility of some resorting to the Vantilianistic paradoxal doctrine, or what we call here: "A Bipolar god".

Milt

[Penfold]

Dear all,

I have enjoyed this thread but don't see much profit in extending it indefinitely. In my original article (http://www.webtruth.org/articles-det...47&group_id=24) I proposed a Biblical answer to the double payment problem most famously set forth by John Owen. Owen attacked the idea of Christ paying for all the sins of all men by proposing that to then send any of those men to hell would be 'double payment'.

The problem with this argument is that, for instance, while Paul was slaughtering the Christians and blaspheming God, God could not hold any of those sins against Paul because they had alrady been paid for. However, dozens of passages in the New Testament that describe sinners prior to salvation as enemies, aliens, rebels, ungodly etc. are contradicted by this notion.

Most who have joined this thread see no problem with the whole double payment issue because they have put 'the elect' into a sort of cocoon whereby even though they may be blasphemers, murderers, homosexuals, rapists prior to conversion, because they are elect they simply can't be in any sense held responsible for their 'already paid for sin'; can't be described as real 'subjects of wrath'; can't be seen as being in any real sense at 'enmity with God' and so on.

This will be my last contribution to this thread. I just leave forum members to ponder the words of Paul:

"the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom 8:7-8). Since this verse applies with equal force to all unbelievers prior to conversion ('elect' and 'non-elect'), I rest there and accept what God says.

For anyone else willing to accept the plain words of scripture, the double payment problem then has to be faced as a separate issue. This is what I addressed in my article (http://www.webtruth.org/articles-det...47&group_id=24).

Thank you for all your contributions.

[Ugly_Gaunt_Cow]

"the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom 8:7-8). Since this verse applies with equal force to all unbelievers prior to conversion ('elect' and 'non-elect'), I rest there and accept what God says.

Thank you for all your contributions.

Bok-bok, bok, bok-bok...

Chicken.

I was exepcting more of a debate from you Foldy-pooh.

Seriously, your audio file on the charasmatic movement was really well done, and I thought you would be willing to exercise the same thinking and think this particular matter out to the end.

Did it occur to you that you have refused to logically piece together the clear rationale of what was provided for you by the other users?

Too bad you have to go so soon.

Scott.

[Mickey]