John 3:16 Conference: David Allen on John Owen

Name's Brian Jolly. I'm a lay person at North Central Baptist Church in Gainesville, Florida. Alvin car. Yes, Pastor Cowan. 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 give me a reference to read on. I was really hoping if you could could just speak that for a little bit. Yeah, I'll be happy to the.

The Double Payment Argument and Limited Atonement

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. Is 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 a issue of the second and third generations after Calvin. Now, there are some very good scholars In fact significantly better scholars than those of 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 an act 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 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 wasn't it never touched the biblical evidence at all. It doesn't go into in fact, it seemed to make it sound as if Owens primary argument was from John 316.

It doesn't go into the Hebrews material and you know death of death was was Owens first book. I would challenge anyone who has been at all impressed by what is presented the John 316 conference. Go to Owens 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 Owens 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 do 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, 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 we bring them together Into one harmonious whole that the 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 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 in see that the idea of union with Christ as a part of the substitutionary act Is runs totally contrary to the position.

He's trying to present. He just doesn't even seem to understand it. But the 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 have 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 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 it here's 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 the other two the double payment argument. It fails to differentiate. And I'm going to use terms here and then I'll try to explain them. But these are the 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.

Owens.

Argument or part of Owens 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 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 Calvinist here many of whom are sub Calvinist, 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 end of the glorified state those who will be in Christ for eternity.

They would have to argue them 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 going to 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 Devinant and I could go on and on and on Albert Barnes. These are Calvinist 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 and 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 Amaral Deen argument, which again, dr Allen does not have the theological foundation his own belief to use these arguments.

I Guess he feels that well if the if the Calvinist argue about these things that 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 sinner just really struggles to come up with anything that's why the Armenians came up with the representational view the governmental view and things like that that came into our minion ism because the idea of substitutionary atonement just doesn't doesn't fly Within our minion ism 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 sinner just 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 debts paid. It's it's all it is is a commercial transaction and as long as I pay it he owes nothing. He's he it's covered.

That's what we call pecuniary. Commer 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 are 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 sure 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.

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.

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. 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.

It is.

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 reception of that debt is Conditioned on their faith that 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 in 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 Saveable 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 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 very compelling and clear on all those 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 the most basic biblical issues that reform 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 and just Completely misses the point, but that's what we got out of this conference.

Supreme Court Pardon Analogy and the Charge of Anachronism

David do you mind if? Everybody 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 not as a pardon unaffected. And you 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 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 and say you just can't make the case that way.

Well I never dreamed I'd find the United States Supreme Court. Being 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.

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 and his high priestly prayer praise 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.

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 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 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 in the entire testimony of the Word of God They end up seeing the reformed faith is consistent with God's revelation.

Thanks for watching.