Sunday, December 02, 2007

Owen on Arminianism

Some of Owen's comments are out-dated, because "Arminianism" to a degree has become a moving target with various justifications. Still Owen's piece is still a good read, and much shorter than his "Death of Death and Death of Christ."

It is a book, not just an article, and it has something like 14 chapters.

Here's the link.



Anonymous said...

What great and keen insights Gottschalk gave us here:

for according to him, predestination was twofold, comprehending the punishment of the reprobate as well as the salvation of the elect; but while he held the predestination of men to the punishment of their sin,

Would to God Seth and company would grapple with these two and not one by one as it seems they strain in the debate ongoing now as we read.

I have read and heard that Owen was no easy read. Now I have dispelled all doubt! :)


Anonymous said...

Again, as the chips fall and fell here too:

"Thomists and Scotists had discussed it in its metaphysical form, and under a cloud of scholastic subtleties, lest the jealousies of a dominant church should be awakened."

Isn't it ironic the area the debate at Contend has waded into over these many days of debate? Seems to me we have touched some of those forms too addressed above in that "next revival"? The metaphysical understandings of "kosmos" surely then, when the plain meaning is both, a literal and then figurative use being employed, as the Holy Ghost reveals; and, oh yeah, what jealousies have been aroused, even within me! :(

In any event, John Owen's, hmmmm, I wonder where he would sit in this debate today? Any guess?

Anonymous said...

As I read things jump at me.

Here is one:

"Arminius depended upon the political support of the state."

That makes sense what McMahon points too about Jacob A's faith. That Arminius was a scoundel of a base order unwilling to "live" comforted by God's Faith, he had to secure the secular whims and will to pay for his own internal demons and heresy because God is never willing to assist anyone's dispatch to the lake of Fire!

Further then: "....amid which Arminius died, and Episcopius became the leader of the Remonstrants,....".

I believe I read that McMahon's belief is this as you said: "...A MOVING TARGET WITH VARIOUS JUSTIFICATIONS.".... is the reason 70% of the "church" is sucked into sensitivities contrary to the Work of the Cross in our daily lives, my words. I do believe as one secularist says, THIS IS JOB SECURITY FOR ME! I truly have a calling and as I yield, He indeed will do His work of Grace and Truth in others through me too!

I know He is using you, TF! :)


Turretinfan said...

Dear Michael,

John Owen held to the doctrine of Limited Atonement/Particular Redemption. His excellent analysis of Scripture lighted the way for me to understand it better.

I'd like to think that if this debate must have "sides," that I'm in his corner. I think that the "other side" would at least agree to that.

Not, of course, that we should automatically accept the doctrine because Owen taught. He was a great Christian scholar, but he was still a man, same as many of the other men whose names have been mentioned in the debate.


Anonymous said...

About Owen, yes I agree.

The beauties, complexities of Scripture, FAITH TO BELIEVE, INVISIBLE Father, Son and Holy Ghost and of course men moved upon to pen these beauties.

Somewhere, I just cannot recall, a man Paul wrote something like there will arise confusion from men, but the True Authorities will bring order when that happens.

As for the far more severe issue this debate points to and I hope either you or Seth bring it along to this:

2Ti 2:19 But God's firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: "The Lord knows those who are his," and, "Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity."
2Ti 2:20 Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honorable use, some for dishonorable.
2Ti 2:21 Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work.
2Ti 2:22 So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart.
2Ti 2:23 Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels.
2Ti 2:24 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil,
2Ti 2:25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,
2Ti 2:26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

At some point clarity should emerge who the "reprobate" and the "elect" are so that we can move over to those warning above by Paul establishing where safety/sozo lies and where boarderline evils that lead to capture is for the deceived elect cleansing themselves in this process opened to our contemplations by Paul!

Anonymous said...

You know, what is amazing is this "modern" view of circumstance!

The very first sentence I extract these words:::>

"....the most recent controversies of modern times."

What suppose ye those recent controversies were? :)