Limited Atonement defended: The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (John Owen) Bk 1 Ch I,III

Рет қаралды 4,446

12 жыл бұрын

The text is available here:
www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/owen_death_index.htm
Owen is a difficult author to wrap the mind around. His thoughts are precise and with great intellectual depth. Don't be discouraged, but if you have a desire to understand the full truth (and have an unshakable defense) of the topic at hand, you may want to listen more than once. You may also want to do a search for the work to read along.
Ch I: In general of the end of the death of Christ, as it is in the Scripture proposed.
III: Of the agent of chief author of the work of our redemption and of the first thing distinctly ascribed to the person of the Father.
Limited Atonement is the least understood, yet a very logical and practical doctrine. I will be uploading major sections of John Owen's book that refutes the idea of a "general ransom" in the Atonement, while he shows clearly that Limited Atonement is the only correct, and sensible, way to understand Christ's work.

Пікірлер: 14

@jeremynethercutt206 3 ай бұрын

ALL GLORY TO GOD!!!!

@LAStreetPreacher 11 жыл бұрын

God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them." 2 Cor 5:19 Here the world appears to mean those God chose in Christ and not every single person who ever lived as some false teachers assume. The word "world" Is Kosmos in Greek and is used in various ways usually determined by the context.

@Chirhopher 5 жыл бұрын

Indeed, Brother Carlton, Grace, Peace, and LOVE in The HOLY KING, YHWH YESHUA. Yes, "kosmos" is rarely used to describe every individual in Creation. And, is always to be taken in context. Might i also recommend a word study on the word "pos"/"all"; also, Always to be taken in context. In John 6, YESHUA Teaches the entire STULIP all in a very short part of the passage. May YHWH Bless and Keep You

@Liminalplace1 2 жыл бұрын

I think John Owen is the best of the Puritans . Though I think we can see here that their whole approach to Theology was wrong ..as they use the many scriptures, skipping from NT to OT, from Pauls epistles to gospels to prophets to Psalms to Moses WITHOUT a salvation-history context or genre difference or nuances of authors. It's as if they have a theology already in mind that they are supporting via scriptures. As opposed where biblical theology seeks to expound the scriptures in context and by authors to discover the writers theology and learn from the writers of scripture. I'm not disgreeing with Puritan theology, but their overall approach was poor . It's better their writings go out of print.. less their approach be carried on.

@DBHunter1 Ай бұрын

Of course you are assuming the texts they quote DON'T what they are teaching! Prove your assertion.

@Liminalplace1 Ай бұрын

@@DBHunter1 too many examples to write. Proper biblical theology begins with understanding individual books and the book's individual authors. Their approach is systematic where they state a doctrine then quote passages supporting it. As a result they aren't "tracking with the authors". It's just that at times their insights hit the mark.

@dionsanchez4478 26 күн бұрын

@@Liminalplace1 I would start with that approach and they did. Not everything they did was written down. Example: Their private research. They approached it as the word of God as a whole. Otherwise, taking the individual authors, you may end up with a false view such as 1 John 2:2 thinking he died for all...and contradicting other texts like Paul Christ died for the church! I get what you are saying and my wife has a seminary degree. But I prefer the Reformed hermeneutic the Analogy of Faith.

@Liminalplace1 26 күн бұрын

@@dionsanchez4478 as Dr.John Walton (Wheaton College) in his book "Wisdom for Faithful Reading" uses the principle he calls "Tracking with the author" because that is where the authority lies. That's the authority of scripture. I'm not sure where the analogy of faith comes in, but I think it's at the level of APPLICATION, but ought not come in during the INTERPRETATION process. For myself I accept so called "limited atonement" because I believe certain authors seem to make the atonement the ground of salvation not a condition and universalism doesn't also fit their meaning

@matthewandrewes5939 23 күн бұрын

@@Liminalplace1Here’s something else to consider: Jews would and do use your exact logic to argue against the NT. They believe Jesus, the apostles, and Christians themselves - from Catholics to Puritans - have all ripped the Jewish scriptures right out of their historical context and misinterpreted them. So, how are we to judge in either case who is right? In the case of Jewish interpretation versus Christian interpretation of the scriptures it’s easy: The resurrection. But in the case of Puritan and reformed theology in general versus other Christian theologies, I would say judge them by their fruits. Puritan theology and reformed theology generally have beyond all doubt produced some of the godliest people to ever walk the earth, eg George Whitefield, John Owen, John Bunyan, Jonathan Edwards, Thomas Brooks, William Greenhill, William Gurnell, etc. The lasting effect and blessing of these people is undeniable: they set the world on fire with evangelism and transformed Western society for the better. I challenge you to find any other biblical theology that has had such a blessed and lasting impact. I’ll close with this: “The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a heavy drinker, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ And yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds.”” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭11‬:‭19‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬ bible.com/bible/2692/mat.11.19.NASB2020