John 3:16 Conference: David Allen on John Owen

My name is

Brian Jolly. I'm a layperson at North Central Baptist Church in Gainesville, Florida. Calvin Carr.

Yes, Pastor Calvin. I am a five -point Calvinist. One thing I was really hoping to hear answered was the double payment argument.

I thank you that you gave me a reference to read on. I was really hoping if you could just speak to that for a little bit.

I'll be happy to. The key argument that is made theologically for limited atonement is the double payment argument.

It's historically argued by John Owen in his famous book, The Death of Death and the Death of Christ. It is important first to note that John Calvin did not use the double payment argument.

Never in his writings does he use it. It's because Calvin didn't hold a limited atonement. It's why.

Now, this first argument that Dr. Allen presents I do not find to be a valid argument at all.

At least at this point, he didn't say, well, Calvin rejected it. He did in his other presentation, as I recall, from listening to it.

But this was not Calvin's issue. This was an issue of the second and third generations after Calvin.

Now, there are some very good scholars, in fact, significantly better scholars than those that Dr.

Allen has cited, who believe that particular redemption is a part of Calvin's thought, or at least, as I would say, perfectly consistent with Calvin's thought.

But it is somewhat anachronistic to try to drag him into the middle of the debate since this was a debate that comes along after him primarily, not before him.

So it's not an argument because, again, the Calvinist is not arguing that the view of particular redemption is based upon one historical figure versus another.

That's the greatest fault I have with Dr. Allen's entire presentation, is that it never touched the biblical evidence at all.

It doesn't go into, in fact, it seemed to make it sound as if Owen's primary argument was from John 3 .16.

It doesn't go into the Hebrew's material. And, you know, Death of Death was Owen's first book.

I would challenge anyone who has been at all impressed by what is presented at the John 3 .16 conference, go to Owen's work as a mature exegete from 20 -25 years later in his

Commentary on Hebrews, the 8 volume, as I recall, Commentary on Hebrews, and check out what he says there.

And you will see that the depth of Owen's argumentation is far beyond the capacity of most of his critics today to even begin to deal with, unfortunately.

That is part of the age in which we live in. And so this first argument I did not find overly compelling, but it was only stated in passing.

Nonetheless, secondly, it's important to note the double payment argument is not found in Scripture.

All right? No biblical author argues the double payment argument. Now this argument

I find to be really very poor, because there are so many things in systematic theology where we bring the entire counsel of God together, and we take this truth here and this truth here, and we bring them together into one harmonious whole, that Dr.

Allen would have to accept. I mean, he could not even begin to make any kind of Trinitarian presentation if, in point of fact, he did not allow for assertions concerning the deity of Christ and the personality of the

Holy Spirit to be brought together to say, well, every argument you use has to be on the surface of Scripture, would render any kind of meaningful, coherent collection of biblical teaching utterly impossible.

So I don't find this to be a meaningful argument whatsoever. The issue concerning God's wrath falling upon Christ in perfection is an issue that relates to substitutionary atonement, which

Arminians shouldn't be believing in, and which anyone today who believes in it is borrowing Reformed theology to do so.

In fact, I would argue that Dr. Allen's presentation, which we'll look at at a later point, really undercuts the whole concept of substitution.

He doesn't even seem to see that the idea of union with Christ as a part of the substitutionary act runs totally contrary to the position he's trying to present.

He just doesn't even seem to understand it. But bringing together the idea of substitution, union with Christ, the nature of the priesthood of Christ, the wrath of God, and this idea of the wrath of God coming upon the substitute in perfection in behalf of those for whom he is atoning.

So if you want to make that universal, then the wrath of God is completely spent against Christ. The question of what then the basis for the condemnation of the lost person who destroys this work of Christ by his unbelief is a perfectly valid one.

It makes perfect sense when you allow the entirety of Scripture to speak. But to say, well, you know, no biblical author ever used this argument is not even the point.

The point is it is found in the biblical material. If you go to the book of Hebrews and you look at what it says, he has perfected for all time.

What does that mean? That goes directly to this argument, and that's why I do not see the opponents of particular redemption dealing with the key biblical texts in a fair and consistent manner.

It certainly didn't happen at the John 316 conference. Now here is the double payment argument in a nutshell.

If Jesus died sufficiently for the sins of the whole world and then people go to hell,

God is unjust. He's punishing them twice. He punished their sins on Christ and he punished their sins by sending them to hell, and therefore

God is unjust. Now I've already mentioned two of the problems with it. Here are the other two. The double payment argument fails to differentiate, and I'm going to use terms here and then

I'll try to explain them, but these are the terms that are used by the

Calvinists who reject the double payment argument. In other words, this is where Dr.

Allen is going to become completely dependent upon Tony Byrne and David Ponter and is going to begin to use their presentation.

One of the problems with that extremely basic and simplistic presentation of Owen's argument or part of Owen's argument is, again, it does not take into consideration the full spectrum of what he's talking about when he speaks of the union of the elect with Christ.

The fullness of the payment that is to be found in substitutionary atonement, the wrath of God, is expended in its completeness upon the substitute who takes the place of those that are joined to the substitute.

And so the idea then is that if John Brown, whom

God knows from eternity, and again here's another problem with dealing with in this way is that these are all individuals who have pretty much rejected the biblical doctrine of election anyways, but if John Brown, who

God knows from eternity, is never going to accept Christ, is going to continue in his hatred of God, and is going to be justly punished for his sins in eternity, why, if God knows this, would he place the sins of John Brown upon the substitute,

Jesus Christ, punish those sins in Christ when it's his intention and his certain knowledge that he is going to then punish those sins for eternity in John Brown?

This, in essence, presents the idea that God is not only unjust in the double punishment, but he is likewise doing something that goes completely against his nature, that makes no sense.

Why you punish the substitute for sins that you know an individual is never going to even ask for forgiveness for.

Why would you do this? Well, some Amaraldians would say, well, it's a demonstration of God's love, it's a demonstration of God's condescension, etc.,

etc., and they try to come up with reasons for this, but it again renders the atonement something that is merely theoretical in their behalf.

Even the, those that he keeps referring to as Calvinists here, many of whom are sub -Calvinists, but even, even at that, at that point, even they would have to argue, if they even believe in election, if they believe that open theist, they believe that God knows the identity of who is going to be with him in eternity, who is going to be glorified, who's going to be brought through that, that process of salvation into the glorified state, those who will be in Christ for eternity, they would have to argue then that even if there is some kind of a effect in regards to the, the non -elect, soteriologically, redemptively, in the death of Christ, because there's obviously impacts of the death of Christ in other areas outside of soteriology, outside of redemption, there's no question about any of that, but soteriologically, redemptively, they would have to admit that it's a different kind of redemption.

It's, it's, it's not part of God's purpose that this is actually going to come to fruition, which of course nobody at the

John 316 conference is gonna buy. Now, where they have a systematic way of even trying to put substitutionary atonement together with whatever form of atonement they're presenting,

I've not heard any meaningful doctrine on that level from the John 316 conference, but they, they, they want to quote people who have a very complex way of trying to deal with these things when they reject the fundamental foundations of the eternal knowledge of God and his decrees and, and election and all the rest of this stuff.

And, and so to quote them the way that David Allen does when he really doesn't believe what they believe at a fundamental level,

I, I don't think is really the way to bring light to this issue.

Dabney is a name you will recognize, A. A. Hodge, Charles Hodge, John Davenant, and I could go on and on and on,

Albert Barnes. These are Calvinists who in their writings and in their systematic theologies said

Owen was wrong on the double payment argument because he failed to distinguish between commercial payment, which is pecuniary and commercialism in terms of debt.

He failed to distinguish the notions of commercial debt and penal debt, and the two are totally different.

I interrupt just briefly to sort of point out, how do you go from saying, oh, the biblical authors never used the double payment argument to now introducing the difference between penal debt and commercial debt?

Those are really biblical categories too, right? It's this kind of inconsistency that I, I really wonder about, and I really wonder likewise about the kind of argument that's being presented here, which is more of an

Amaraldian argument, which again, Dr. Allen does not have the theological foundation in his own belief to use these arguments.

I, I guess he feels that, well, if the Calvinists argue about these things, then we don't have to worry about it.

How is that providing a positive biblical argument for your own position? That was what was missing in the entirety of David Allen's presentation, was a positive biblical presentation of his own view of the atonement, and that's because the synergist really struggles to come up with anything.

That's why the Arminians came up with the representational view, the governmental view, and things like that that came into Arminianism, because the idea of substitutionary atonement just doesn't, doesn't fly within Arminianism, and they recognize that.

And so, it's not enough to just say, well, there are Calvinists who argue about things like this.

Well, congratulations, let's go the Word of God. That's what Calvinists do. Why don't the synergists do that?

That's what I understand. Illustrate it this way. In a commercial debt, if Dr.

Lemke and I are over here at the Crystals, or the Long John Silvers, or wherever, and, and he doesn't, he discovers he doesn't have enough money, and so I pay for his,

I pay for his meal, all right? From the perspective of the proprietor of the restaurant, his debt's paid.

It's, it's, all it is is a commercial transaction, and as long as I pay it, he, he owes nothing.

He's, he, it's covered. That's what we call pecuniary and commercial debt.

Now, penal debt, legal, legal situations are totally different from that, because there is not only a debt involved, there's a moral issue that is involved as well.

And in the legal debt, in, in that situation, if you, let me illustrate it this way.

If you, let's say that we have six men here who are in prison, and the king of the country comes and says that,

I am willing for all six of you to be released from prison. My son is going to pay the price for your release, and the condition is you join my army, and you are free to be released.

And then the son pays the price for all six to be released, but only three of the six meet the condition they are willing to join the army.

The other three say, I'm sorry, I'm not, I'm not willing to join the army. There is no legal court on earth that would say, well,

I'm sorry, that's unjust, their penalty has been paid. No, their legal debt has been paid, their moral debt has not been paid, and the condition of the covenant is,

I will say, I will redeem you, or I will release you, I will pay the penalty, and you join my army.

Excuse me? Um, I, I didn't hear any biblical passages cited, and you're not going to, because where do you get this?

First, first of all, it completely misunderstands the entire concept of atonement. It shows no understanding of the nature of wrath, propitiation, union with Christ, substitutionary atonement, uh, the concept of perfecting those who are sanctified.

That entire illustration is utterly unbiblical, has no connection to any of the texts that illustrate the relationship of the redeemed to Christ.

Completely ignores, I mean, okay, let me take that back. It doesn't completely ignore. It says, my son will pay your debt if you join my army.

Um, I guess that's supposed to mean, if you'll believe in me, my son will pay your debt.

I thought the whole argument was, he's already paid the debt, but now, now are we saying that there's only a portion of the debt that he pays?

That the moral element of it is, is not paid by Christ? So, are we adding to what

Christ actually accomplishes? It's not really, to tell us that, it's not really finished. Uh, it is, um, uh, well, well,

I guess we are now savable, as long as we'll join the army. This is, this is what

Christ means. This is what the scripture means when it says that he has perfected for all time.

Is this what the high priest accomplishes? You can see why my, my first suggestion was, wouldn't it be useful to such a wide variety of people to have a three or three and a half hour debate between myself and Dr.

Allen on the biblical texts? Because if he's going to be using illustrations like that, while I'm in Hebrews 8 and 9 and 10, and I'm in Ephesians 5, and I'm in Ephesians 1, it sort of illustrates the difference between the two sides.

And see, this is what the scripture teaches. God, through Christ, has paid the penal debt through a penal substitutionary atonement.

He has paid the debt for every human being, but the recep, reception of that debt is conditioned on their faith.

And this is stated a hundred times in the New Testament. It is never stated to be on condition of their election.

Now, I'll be happy to furnish you, I just didn't get to this, but I can give you Calvinist after Calvinist after Calvinist after Calvinist who defeat that, that argument.

That argument is easily defeated. That argument is easily defeated.

That's what Dr. Allen just said. Well, if it's easily defeated, then it would seem to be a very wise thing for us to arrange in 2009, both of our busy schedules, for him to demonstrate how easily that argument is defeated.

But that's going to require him to establish that the atoning work of Christ only removes legal barriers, but saves no one.

And that is his position. He agreed with the Calvinist that he quoted, that said that the death of Christ makes us savable only.

It does not save. Other things have to be done. In this case, we have to join the army. Now, he just said, well, hundreds of times, our salvation is based upon our faith.

Of course, it's God's grace that grants us our faith in the first place. That's why, really, you have to start earlier than this particular issue to lay the foundation.

And the scriptures are very, very compelling and clear on all those levels. And I've not heard any meaningful, even a meaningful attempt so far in the

John 316 conference to actually deal with the most basic biblical issues that Reformed people present on these subjects.

But it is troubling to hear this kind of cavalier dismissal based upon argumentation that just, sorry, wasn't compelling at all, had almost no biblical grounds to it, and just completely misses the point.

But that's what we got out of this conference. David, do you mind if, would it be all right if I just add up one point?

That is a legal argument and not a scriptural one, and the Supreme Court has already answered. In 1833, there was a man named

George Wilson who received a pardon from Andrew Jackson. He was guilty of robbing the federal mail and was condemned to death.

And for whatever reason, Andrew Jackson issued him a pardon, and Wilson rejected it, would not receive the pardon.

So they were going to execute him. His lawyers took it all the way to the Supreme Court saying, you cannot execute a man who's been pardoned.

And the Supreme Court Justice Marshall said, a pardon unreceived is a pardon unaffected.

And he said, it has been provided, but it has not been received, and Wilson was executed.

So the double jeopardy argument has already been answered by legal scholars.

Right. What happened is Owen is importing Western legal jurisprudence into the first century.

It is an anachronism. You simply cannot do it. And many of his Calvinist friends recognize that and say, you just can't make the case that way.

All right. Now someone Well, I never dreamed I'd find the United States Supreme Court being made an argument in regards to the atonement of Christ.

Owen is not using modern Western legal parameters at that point. Well, if he is, then the writer of the book of Hebrews did, and Paul did.

And I guess in Romans 8, you know, Paul's borrowing, you know, that kind of legal language. And it's very difficult to follow a consistent argument in this kind of rhetoric.

And to demonstrate that the United States Supreme Court took particular actions and how somehow that's relevant to the biblical teaching that the high priest, for example, intercedes for us in heaven, that he presents his offering.

This is one action of the high priest, those for whom he makes the offering. In the Old Testament, that offering was not for the whole world.

It was for a specific people. That offering then, Jesus in his high priestly prayer, prays for his elect people.

He then intercedes in behalf of his elect people before the Father. There has to be a correspondence between the audience for which he intercedes and the offering itself.

The high priest cannot make an offering for one group and then intercede for a different group. So is Christ interceding for those who are in hell?

You know, these are the questions that people want to hear these individuals, the Southern Baptist leaders, deal with openly.

Not move around, not have a monologue about and just give a surface answer. The people there that wanted answers know that if there was someone there, doesn't have to be me, but someone there, who could then say, no, no, no.

Could you please answer this question? Could you explain why Hebrews describes it in this way? Can you explain the high priestly role?

Things like that, that they couldn't get away with these kind of responses. And that's why debate is so important.

That's why it's useful, is to be able to bring these things together and help the people of God to see how both sides handle the

Word of God. Who goes the Word of God and who goes outside the Word of God? Who's consistent in their hermeneutic?

Who's consistent in their exegesis? And I think that's why generally these folks avoid that kind of encounter because their position is not consistent on that level.

And so I found this to be a fascinating question. The response, however, again illustrates why it is that when people are allowed to deal with the entire issue and the entire testimony of the

Word of God, they end up seeing that the Reformed faith is consistent with God's revelation.