Notes on John Owen's Polemic on Arminianism
A discussion on the extent of the atonement (who is saved thereby) leads to a further discussion on the nature of the atonement (what did Christ accomplish thereby).
- The idea of universal salvation finds only rebuke when confronted with Scripture which leaves only two possible implications; either Christ died in accordance with the Father's will to actually purchase the salvation of some (particular redemption) or Christ died to make it possible for any person to be saved who believes in Christ of their own libertarian free will (general redemption). Since Scripture asserts that Christ's work on the Cross was effective, the latter implies that Christ failed in effecting the actual salvation of anyone because only the possibility of salvation was purchased on the Cross. Owen sees this implication as derogatory and blasphemous to a God who accomplishes everything in His purpose.
- Arminianism asserts that, "if faith and unbelief are to be responsible acts, they must be independent acts" (Packer, 137). Arminianism, described as a semi-pelagian works-based salvation masquerading under a different name, says that we save ourselves by accepting the salvation that Christ made possible on the Cross. This has a remarkably negative implication when one tries to understand justification by faith. As Packer writes, "What we say comes to this--that Christ saves us with our help; and what that means, when one thinks it out, is this--that we save ourselves with Christ's help" (Packer, 137).
- The old gospel that Owen preaches is not only as full and free an offer of salvation as the Arminian version but it is the most edifying gospel because it finds its power in the absoluteness of God's sovereignty which fully highlights the true nature of God's mercy.
- The Arminian doctrine of a universal divine saving purpose (general redemption) has two more negative implications and here I will use Packer's words at length because I think it might be his best passage on the topic.
"The first is that it compels us to misunderstand the significance of the gracious invitations of Christ in the gospel of which we have been speaking; for we now have to read them, not as expressions of the tender patience of a mighty Sovereign, but as the pathetic pleadings of impotent desire; and so the enthroned Lord is suddenly metamorphosed into a weak, futile figure tapping forlornly at the door of the human heart, which he is powerless to open. This is a shameful dishonor to the Christ of the New Testament. The second implication is equally serious; for this view in effect denies our dependence on God when it comes to vital decisions, takes us out of his hand, tells us that we are, after all, what sin taught us to think we were--masters of our fate, captain of our souls--and so undermines the very foundation of man's religious relationship with his Maker" (Packer, 143).
