Owenic Calvinism

I saw over on another blog a discussion regarding whether Revelation 5:9 demonstrates limited atonement: “You were slain, and you redeemed men for God by your blood, out of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.” Again, this is a striking example of how incapable many Calvinists are of seeing the assumptions they bring to exegetical questions.

In other words, Paul Owen, was entertaining his on going obsession with James White. You see, Paul Owen is terribly infatuated with Reformed Baptists like Dr. White. One wonders why someone who goes out of his way to criticize them at every turn spends so much time lurking on their blogs.

The posts to which Dr. Owen is referring begins here: http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1302


We find there simply a statement that this text shows that Christ has purchased the elect for Himself. They are composed of persons from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation. Nothing more, nothing less.

However, a certain critic emailed Dr. White, and Dr. White responded here:
http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1303

The focus of this objection centered on the extent of the atonement. That is, the definition of “world” was called into question by Dr. White’s interlocuter.

My purpose here is not to present Dr. White’s exegesis, but to take a look at what Dr. Owen has said. Notice that Paul Owen goes out of his way to tell us that this a “striking example of how incapable many Calvinists are of seeing the assumptions they bring to exegetical questions.

Hmmm, but didn’t Paul Owen say just a few months ago that a person is bound not to interpret Scripture outside of the confessions to which he ascribes? Paul Owen believes that men cannot freely violate their confessions. He did this in an article on, of all things, exegesis:

Whereas an individual has every right to call into question and even reject the truth or validity of any other individual’s attempt to restate the original intent of Scripture, no individual has the right to resist and reject the Creedal or Confessional judgments of the Church to which she is subject by
virtue of membership (WCF 20.4; 31.3).

So, Paul Owen chastises certain Calvinists (by this he really means James White) for bringing a particular set of assumptions to exegetical questions. However, if we follow Paul Owen’s own views on exegesis, we shouldn’t be free to intepret outside our confessions. In Dr. White’s case that is the LCBF 2. How is Dr. White’s exegesis not consonant with the LCBF2? Is Dr. White free to intepret Scripture apart from it or not, Dr. Owen, since that is, after all, his confession? Supposing for a moment that is the source of his “assumptions” then why would you object, since you do not believe any individual has the right to resist and reject the creedal or confessional judgments of the Church to which that person is subject by virtue of membership?

Then Dr. Owen presents us with this astounding piece of exegesis:

Hence 2 Peter 2:1 directly states that some in the Church who have been purchased by the Lord will perish.

Tell us, Dr. Owen, if you vary from the 39 Articles here or the WCF or whatever your confession happens to be this week, isn’t this just a result of the assumption you bring to the text?

For that matter, let’s take a look at 2 Peter 2:1.

1But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

Owen is assuming that “bought” must mean “atoned for sin.” Depending on the way the objection is framed, this is a classic example of either semantic anachronism or semantic inflation.

Semantic Inflation: The disputant equates the mere occurrence of a word with a whole doctrine associated with the word. For example, a Catholic will compare and contrast Paul’s doctrine of justification with James’ doctrine of justification. But the mere fact that James uses the word “justification” doesn’t mean that he even has a doctrine of justification. That would depend, not on the occurrence of the word, in isolation, but on a larger argument. Words and concepts are two different things.

Semantic Anachronism occurs when a disputant maps dogmatic usage back onto Biblical usage, then appeals to Biblical usage, thus redefined, to disprove dogmatic usage. For example, some Arminians appeal to Mt 23:37, Lk 7:30, Acts 7:51, Gal 2:21; 5:4, 2 Cor 6:1; & Heb 12:15 to disprove “irresistible grace.” (We will see this repeatedly in the next section).

In this text, Peter is not using the verb “to buy” as a synonym for penal substitution, which is a theological construct (cf. Isa 53; Rom 5; 2 Cor 5:18,21; Gal 3:13; Col 2:14; 1 Pet 2:24; 3:18). Rather, his usage is allusive of false OT prophets like Balaam (2:15; cf. Jude 11), as well as the Exodus generation (cf. Deut 32:6; 2 Sam 7:23).

In the New Testament, “bought” is used both salvifically and non-salvifically. In every case where it is used with reference to the atonement, there are specific indicators, usually referring to a price. None of those indicators are in this text.

“Master” is never, to my recollection, used in a redemptive context. Gary Long, Definite Atonement, p.71: …

despotes is used about thirty times in the whole of Scripture-twenty times in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament and ten times in the New Testament. But never does it refer to the Father or the Son as mediator unless II Peter 2:1 be the exception. And if this be the case, the burden of proof rests upon those who wish to make it the exception, does it not

It refers to the rulership of Christ or God as a whole, not the priestly or prophetic works of Christ. Even if it was, that does not speak to its use in this particular context. The text is most likely paraphrasing Deut. 32:6, where God is called the Creator of the nation. These men are false teachers who are not all genuine believers and who are, by falsely professing Christ and intentionally trying to mislead the Christians, defying their Master (either Christ as their King or God as their creator and king), “(W)ho bought them” is a literary device from the Torah pointing to this text in Deuteronomy. The Jews were “bought” by God in the Exodus. To a Jew/Jewish Christian, “Lord” and “Master” in this context, refer to God the Father, not Christ, or, if Christ, to His rule as King, not Priest.

Where does this text say anything about Christ having purchased these individuals by way of the cross? The commercial metaphor here hearkens back to the Old Testament, not the gospels. It refers to ownership, not redemption as such. This is a striking example of how incapable many schismatics are of seeing the assumptions they bring to exegetical questions.

Romans 14:15 and Acts 20:28-29 also show that some of those for whom Christ died may perish.

Really?

Romans 14: 15 For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died.

Dr. Owen thinks this refers to non-elect persons for whom Christ died and who have been allowed to taste of the benefits of the cross by way of word and sacrament. He writes,

Christ died for his eschatological Church, but in history, some non-elect persons are allowed to enjoy the benefits purchased for that Church for a season. He died “for” them in the sense that when God sent his Son to die, he knew that some who were not elect would receive temporary benefits from that death. They would be freed and forgiven for a season by participating in the benefits offered in the gospel through word and sacrament.

This text is discussing food sacrificed to idols and a dispute within the church over matters of conscience. The one “destroyed” is a brother of weaker conscience for whom Christ died, an elect person, not a non-elect person for whom Christ died who receives temporary benefits offered in the gospel through word and sacrament. To “destroy” such a brother is not to cause him lose his salvation or cause a non-elect person to perish. Such ideas are nowhere in sight. The reference is used to denote leading him to violate his conscience in this matter and cause him unneeded distress. It is to place an unnecessary and unwanted obstacle, a stumbling block, before him with respect to his sanctification.

"If Christ loved the weak believer to the extent of laying down his life for his salvation, how alien to the demands of this love is the refusal on the part of the strong to forego the use of a certain article of food when the religious interests of the one for whom Christ died are thereby imperiled! It is the contrast between what the extreme sacrifice of Christ exemplified and the paltry demand devolving upon us that accentuates the meanness of our attitude when we discard the interests of a weak brother. And since the death of Christ as the price of redemption for all believers is the bond uniting them in fellowship, how contradictory is any behaviour that is not patterned after the love which
Christ's death exhibited!" (Murray, 191).

Just for tickles and grins, let’s what Calvin himself said about Romans 14:15:

15. But if through meat thy brother is grieved, etc. He now explains how the offending of our brethren may vitiate the use of good things. And the first thing is, -- that love is violated, when our brother is made to grieve by what is so trifling; for it is contrary to love to occasion grief to any one. The
next thing is, -- that when the weak conscience is wounded, the price of Christ's blood is wasted; for the most abject brother has been redeemed by the blood of Christ: it is then a heinous crime to destroy him by gratifying the stomach; and we must be basely given up to our own lusts, if we prefer meat, a
worthless thing, to Christ. 3 The third reason is, -- that since the liberty attained for us by Christ is a
blessing, we ought to take care, lest it should be evil spoken of by men and justly blamed, which is the case, when we unseasonably use God's gifts. These reasons then ought to influence us, lest by using our liberty, we thoughtlessly cause offenses.

Judith Gundry-Volf identifies two forms of damage incurred by the weak:

"a subjective form consisting in grief and deep self-deprecation, and an objective form consisting in concrete sin, resultant guilt and possible incapacitation to behave consistently with one's beliefs. None of Paul's descriptions of the negative consequences born by the weak when they follow the example of the strong -- stumbling, sinning, sorrow, defiling and wounding of the conscience [cf. 1 Cor. 8:7], self-condemnation -- necessarily entails loss of salvation or complete dissolution of a relationship to God" (Paul and Perseverance: Staying In and Falling Away [Louisville: Westminster, 1990],
95).

Acts 20: 28"Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

29"I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;

Dr. Owen seems to be alluding to a connection between this text at 2 Peter 2:1, e.g. he’s reading back his interpretation of 2 Peter 2:1 here. However, all this says is that Christ has purchased the church with His own blood. Notice here that we have something about blood here. This is absent from 2 Peter 2:1. It merely says “bought.” All this text says is that false teachers will come in among the members of the church. That’s it. There is nothing so grandiose here as Dr. Owen’s conclusion that Christ died for non-elect persons. To make it say that, Owen has to either reduce the power of the atonement like an Arminian or reduce the reference to the church to the visible church, which contains elect and non-elect persons and then read back the non-salvific benefits of redemption into the text. That’s rather ambitious. Where, might we ask, can Dr. Owen show us persons purchased by Christ for a price who are not also elect and who are thus called and justified and subsequently secure in any of the pertinent texts?

It’s true, the cross does bring non-salvific benefits to the reprobate. I'd argue that 2 Peter 3:9 and the surrounding context show exactly that, for the application of redemption to the elect by way of calling and conversion requires that history be allowed to continue until they are all brought to repentance. When that is done, the Lord will return. This staves off judgment for the reprobate, in the ultimate sense, until then. On the other hand, this serves to judge them, since they reject even this small mercy. The only folks that might really give a different answer are in the PRC, and even then, that's pretty qualified. However, this text, in fact, none of the texts Dr. Owen cites say this. Again, this is a striking example of how incapable many Schismatics are of seeing the assumptions they bring to exegetical questions. In fact, from what we can tell, about the best this one has offered to counter the assumptions of those with whom he disagrees, amounts to a Strong’s Concordance attempt to link a commercial metaphor across no less than three separate authors, writing to 3 separate audiences, addressing 3 separate situations and treating them as if they are the same.