The Lord’s Prayer (Part 2)

Verse: Matthew 6:10

A) English Translations

KJV: Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. NASB: ‘Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven. NLT: May your Kingdom come soon. May your will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.

B) Greek

ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου·
γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου,
ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς·

Source: https://www.nestle-aland.com/en/read-na28-online/text/bibeltext/lesen/stelle/50/60001/69999/

Source: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/6-10.htm Continue reading “The Lord’s Prayer (Part 2)”

God’s Sovereignty in relation to Man’s sinful acts

[The following excerpt is taken from Henry Clarence Thiessen’s Lectures in Systematic Theology (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1979), pp.124-125]

“How then do the sinful acts of men fit into the program of a sovereign God? Does God necessitate sin? Several incidents make it appear that way. God hardened Pharoah’s heart (Exod. 10:27); it was sin for David to number Israel, yet the Lord moved him to do it (2 Sam. 24:1; cf. 1 Chron. 21:1); God gave the sinner up to more sin (Rom. 1:24, 26, 28); he shut up all in disobedience (Rom. 11:32); and, during the tribulation, God will send a deluding influence so that unbelievers will believe a lie (2 Thess. 2:11). If God is not the author of sin (Hab. 1:13; James 1:13; 1 John 1:5; 2:16), how can these incidents be explained? How is God related to man’s sinful acts?

This can be answered in four ways. (1) Often God restrains man from the sin which man intends to do. This is called “preventative providence.” God said to Abimelech, “I also kept you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not let you touch her” (Gen. 20:6). David prayed, “Also keep back thy servant from presumptuous sins; let them not rule over me” (Ps. 19:13; cf. Matt. 6:13). God has promised not to allow the believer to be tempted above what he can bear (1 Cor. 10:13).

(2) God, instead of actively restraining man from doing evil, will sometimes permit sin to take its course. This is called “permissive providence.” In Hosea 4:7, God said, “Ephraim is joined to idols; let him alone.” God “permitted all the nations to go their own ways.” (Acts 14:16; cf. 2 Chron. 32:31; Ps. 81:12; Rom. 1:24, 26, 28).

(3) Further, God uses directive providence. He allows evil but directs the way it goes. Jesus said to Judas, “What  you do, do quickly” (John 13:27). Those involved in the crucifixion of Christ did what God predestined to occur (Acts 2:23; 4:27f.). Man’s intent was evil, but God used this evil intent to accomplish his will. God used the wrath of man to praise him (Ps. 76:10; cf. Isa. 10:5-15).

(4) Finally, God, through restrictive providence, determines the limits to which evil and its effects may go. He said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your power, only do not put forth your hand on him” (Job 1:12; cf. 2:6; 1 Cor. 10:13; 2 Thess. 2:7; Rev. 20:2f.).

From these considerations it is clear that all evil acts of the creature are under the complete control of God. They can occur only by his permission, and insofar as he permits them. Though they are evil in themselves, he overrules them for good. Thus the wicked conduct of Joseph’s brethren, the obstinacy of Pharaoh, the lust for conquest of the heathen nations that invaded the Holy Land and finally carried the people into captivity, the rejection and crucifixion of Christ, the persecution of the church, and the wars and revolutions among the nations have all been overruled for God’s purpose and glory.”

God alone is good by nature

[The following is an extract from Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae: Volume 2, Existence and Nature of God: 1a. 2-11 (Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp.89-90]

“For to be called ‘good’ a thing must be perfect. Now there is a threefold perfection in things: firstly, they are established in existence; secondly, they possess in addition certain accidents necessary to perfect their activity; and a third perfection comes when they attain some extrinsic goal. Thus the primary perfection of fire lies in existing according to its own substantial form, a secondary perfection consists in heat, lightness, dryness, and so on; and a third perfection is being at rest in its appropriate place.

Now this threefold perfection belongs by nature to no caused thing, but only to God; for he alone exists by nature, and in him there are no added accidents (power, wisdom and the like which are accidental to other things belonging to him by nature, as already noted). Moreover, he is not disposed towards some extrinsic goal, but is himself the ultimate goal of all other things. So it is clear that only God possess every kind of perfection by nature. He alone therefore is by nature good.

Hence: 1. Being one does not involve being perfect, but only being undivided, and things belongs to everything by nature. For the natures of simple things are both undivided and indivisible, and the natures of composite things are at least undivided. So things whilst necessarily one by nature, are not, as we have shown, necessarily good by nature.

2. Although things are good inasmuch as they exist, nevertheless existence is not the nature of any created thing, and so it does not follow that created things are good by nature.

3. The goodness of a created thing is not its nature, but something additional: either its existence, or some added perfection, or some relatedness to a goal. This additional goodness however is said to be good in the same way that it is said to exist. Now it is said to exist as a mode which something exists, not as something having its own mode of existence. And so it is said to be good because things that possess it are good, not because it itself possess some other goodness making it good.”

A Refinery Called Purgatory

Many of us would have heard of Purgatory from pop culture, most notably the Divine Comedy (aka Dante’s Inferno) by Dante Aligheri. Deriving its name from the Latin root word purgare, it means to purify and to remove dirty/impure things. It was one of the main teachings that the Protestant Reformation sought to establish doctrinal stances around.[1]

What is Purgatory

Purgatory is defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) as follows:

All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.[2]

and

The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.[3]

This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: “Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.” From the beginning the Church has honoured the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God. The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.[4]

As mentioned in another article, the Roman Catholic understanding of justification is not the same as the Protestant understanding of Justification. The Protestant understanding of Justification takes on a more forensic overtone as it builds on the belief of Imputed Righteousness, where the perfect iustitia aliena (alien righteousness) of Jesus Christ is imputed onto the believer at the moment of belief and the believer’s legal standing before God is made right. Conversely, the Roman Catholic understanding of Justification is built on infused righteousness which is seen as the preparation of the believer’s disposition to a sanctifying process where a believer’s righteousness can be enhanced or diminished, rather than a declarative of a believer’s legal standing before God.  Because a believer is infused with saving grace and the righteousness can ebb and flow with the observance (or neglect) of the Sacraments and other works, it stands to reason that at the end of a believer’s life a believer may still have some unrighteousness left from lesser sins.[5] Purgatory is then the final purification to rid the believer of the leftover unrighteousness after which he may enter heaven.

Scriptural Support

For the sake of brevity, the author will only be highlighting the passage most commonly raised by Roman Catholics when defending the doctrine of Purgatory which is 2 Maccabees 12:38-45.

Other verses also commonly raised to defend the doctrine of Purgatory include Matthew 5:26, Matthew 12:32, 1 Corinthians 3:15, Colossians 1:24, and 1 Peter 3:19-20. As these books are all present in the Protestant bible and thus available for self-study, the author will leave these verses out.

Catholic apologist Tim Staples writes on Catholic.com as below:

A Very Good Place to Start

Perhaps the best place to start is with the most overt reference to a “Purgatory” of sorts in the Old Testament. I say a “Purgatory of sorts” because Purgatory is a teaching fully revealed in the New Testament and defined by the Catholic Church. The Old Testament people of God would not have called it “Purgatory,” but they did clearly believe that the sins of the dead could be atoned for by the living as I will now prove. This is a constitutive element of what Catholics call “Purgatory.”

In II Maccabees 12:39-46, we discover Judas Maccabeus and members of his Jewish military forces collecting the bodies of some fallen comrades who had been killed in battle. When they discovered these men were carrying “sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear” (vs. 40), Judas and his companions discerned they had died as a punishment for sin. Therefore, Judas and his men “turned to prayer beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out… He also took up a collection… and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably… Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.”[6]

Aside from asserting the non-canonicity of the book of 2 Maccabees, the author would argue against Staples that even within this passage, it does not support the doctrine of Purgatory the way that he writes it in his article and is at best silent on the issue. To establish this point, let us read through the whole passage to understand the context:

2 Maccabees 12 38-45 (NRSV)

38 Then Judas assembled his army and went to the city of Adullam. As the seventh day was coming on, they purified themselves according to the custom, and kept the sabbath there.

39 On the next day, as had now become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with their kindred in the sepulchres of their ancestors.

40 Then under the tunic of each one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was the reason these men had fallen.

41 So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous judge, who reveals the things that are hidden;

42 and they turned to supplication, praying that the sin that had been committed might be wholly blotted out. The noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened as the result of the sin of those who had fallen.

43 He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection.

44 For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.

45 But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, so that they might be delivered from their sin.

In short, Judas Maccabeus’ army had just defeated the governor of Idumea, Gorgias’ army. Judas was looking through the clothing of his own men that died in the battle and found that they were carrying amulets of the idols of Jamnia and asserted that this was the reason these men were slain in battle. He then collected some money as a sin offering for those that died and is praised by the author of Maccabees for doing so.

Refutation

Upon initial reading of the passage, it would seem that Staples has a case for a proto-Purgatory especially from v.43-45 as the author of Maccabees did imply that Judas prayed and made atonement for the dead. However, this can be refuted with a simple read through with basic hermeneutics.

Let’s read through v.43-45 and highlight the content Staples left out in his article with ellipses.

43 He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection.

44 For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.

45 But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, so that they might be delivered from their sin.

Though the books of the Hebrew Old Testament were written mainly in Hebrew and Aramaic, the books of the Apocrypha, including 2 Maccabees, were generally written in Greek. The word translated as “For” in v.44 is εἰ in Greek. The Greek εἰ is a Conditional Participle or Conjunction which means that the subsequent serves as an explanation to the notion presented beforehand.[7] In other words, v.44 serves to explain the reason for Judas’ actions in v.43. V.45 then serves as the antithesis to the reason provided in v.44.

We see here the author of Maccabees in v.44-45a explaining the foolishness of Judas’ actions if he did not believe in their resurrection and commending the wisdom of Judas’ actions if he did believe in their resurrection. In other words, the author is providing commentary on Judas’ action and commending the consistency of his actions with his belief regardless of whether it was factual or not, not postulating the veracity of his beliefs. In simpler words, the author of Maccabees is praising Judas for not being a hypocrite rather than telling the readers that his beliefs were correct.

Closing Notes

There are many other passages that serve as antitheses to the doctrine of Purgatory. The author has only addressed one particular passage as it is one commonly referred to when discussing this doctrine.  The author strongly encourages readers to read the book of 2 Maccabees for themselves so that the readers may be spurred to inculcate a Berean spirit and examine for themselves to see if these things are true.[8]

Fides Quarens Intellectum

 

[1] Cf. 95 Theses by Martin Luther; Article XXII of 39 Articles of Religion and other notable works

[2] Catechism of the Catholic Church 1030

[3] Catechism of the Catholic Church 1031

[4] Catechism of the Catholic Church 1032

[5] Catechism of the Catholic Church 1030

[6] Tim Staples, Is Purgatory in the Bible? on Catholic.com

[7] Strong’s Greek Concordance #1487

[8] Acts 17:11

Righteousness: Imputed? Infused? Confused?

Righteousness presents itself as no minor theme that finds itself peppered all over Scripture. When asked what Righteousness is, many Christians find themselves befuddled in attempting to explain this concept especially to our non-Christian friends. It is important to note that other beliefs also have concepts of Righteousness; so when I say many Christians have trouble explaining Righteousness to our non-Christian friends, I mean to explain Righteousness in the Christian context with all its nuances. For example, many religions traditionally associated with the Far East like Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism employ the word Dharma to mean righteous living/practice or truth.[1]

Much can be said on this subject even when narrowed down to within the Christian sphere of understanding, so I will focus this article to an aspect of Righteousness hotly debated in the Christian realm, namely the nature of Righteousness’ relationship to us whether by imputation or infusion. This article is meant to provide some layman understanding of the issue so that further self-study will be made easier.

But before we delve into the matter, it would be best to establish some solid footing in the definition of Righteousness in order to see how it relates to the whole imputation versus infusion debate.

What is Righteousness?

The Greek δɩκαɩοσύνη (dikaiosunē) and Hebrew צדקה (tzedakah) are traditionally translated into English as Righteousness, Justice (or even Charity) depending on the context.[2] In these contexts, Righteousness/ Justice is usually presented and defined along the lines of “fulfilment of an obligation/ requirement/ demand.”

A couple of examples of Righteousness being rendered in the fulfillment sense with brief commentary are listed below:

(All translations are taken from the ESV unless stated otherwise)

Deuteronomy 6:25

And it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to do all this commandment before the LORD our God, as he has commanded us.’

Commentary:

Moses had just given Israel the commandments and statutes which they were supposed to observe when they lived in the Promised Land. Israel would be counted righteous if they were to do and fulfill all that they were commanded to do.

Matthew 3:15

But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented.

 Commentary:

It is the author’s belief that the baptism of Jesus was symbolic of His entry into the priestly ministry, just as priests and high priests had to perform a ritual bath to consecrate themselves to minister in the Tabernacle, fulfilling the commandment of God.[3] Much more can be expounded on this matter but that is not the focus of this article.

Now that we have established the definition of Righteousness as the state of fulfillment of God’s demands, let us now proceed to define and examine each mode by which we receive righteousness, and how it all fits into the understanding of soteriology.

Infused Righteousness

Traditionally associated with the Roman Catholic perspective of justification, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is consistent with the Protestant view that justification is through faith[4] by the grace of God.[5] However, it is the mechanism by which that faith justifies which the two camps differ on. The Catechism states:

The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification:

Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself.[6]

Robert Hooker, a 17th-century theologian writes of the Catholic doctrine of infused righteousness as below:

(Words have been rewritten to reflect 21st century spelling. Word order and grammar remains)

This grace (righteousness) they (Roman Catholics) will have to be applied by infusion, to tend that as the body is warmed by the heat which is in the body, so the soul might be righteous by inherent grace, which grace they make capable of increase; as the body may be more warmed, so the soul more and more justified,…[7]

Lest the author be accused of referring to a non-Catholic for the explanation of Infused Righteousness, below is an excerpt from the Council of Trent:

“Justification is not the mere remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renovation of the inward man through the voluntary reception of grace and gifts of grace; whereby an unjust man becomes just, the enemy a friend, so that he may be an heir according to the hope of eternal life … The only formal cause of justification is the justice (justitia) of God, not that by which he himself is just, but that by which he makes us just, — that namely by which we are gratuitously renewed by him in the spirit of our minds, and are not only reputed, but really are and are denominated just, receiving justice into ourselves each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Spirit imparts to each as He pleases, and, also, according to each one’s own disposition and cooperation . . .”[8]

From Hooker and the Council’s explanation, we can note that the Roman Catholic understanding of infused, justifying faith is that it is seen as the preparation of the believer’s disposition to a sanctifying process where a believer’s righteousness can be enhanced or diminished, rather than a declarative of a believer’s legal standing before God. The source of this ebb and flow of this saving grace thus lies in the observance of sacraments, performance of good works with the proper disposition… or the neglect/ denial thereof as implied by the Council:

If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification; – though all (the sacraments) are not necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.[9]

Purgatory

Based on the understanding of Infused Righteousness, the Roman Catholic understanding of Justification which separates the period of change in legal status before God and the change in a believer’s disposition allows for (or dare I say, necessitate) the doctrine of Purgatory. Purgatory is explained in the Catechism as:

All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.[10]

and

The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire.

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.[11]

To explain further, because a believer is infused with saving grace and the righteousness can ebb and flow with the observance (or neglect) of the Sacraments and other works, it stands to reason that at the end of a believer’s life a believer may still have some unrighteousness left from lesser sins10. Purgatory is then the final purification to rid the believer of the leftover unrighteousness after which he may enter heaven. The doctrine of Purgatory is further expounded here.

Imputed Righteousness

Imputed Righteousness, which is traditionally associated with the Reformed camp, postulates that our justification before God stems not from the inherent righteousness of a believer but from the iustitia aliena (alien righteousness) of Christ.

Believers are thus, according to Luther, righteous on account of the alien righteousness of Christ which is imputed to them – that is, treated as if it were theirs through faith[12]

The Westminster Larger Catechism elucidates the distinction between justification and sanctification in this manner:

“Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification, yet they differ, in that God in justification imputeth the righteousness of Christ; in sanctification, his Spirit infuseth grace, and enableth to the exercise thereof; in the former, sin is pardoned; in the other, it is subdued; the one doth equally free all believers from the revenging wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life, that they never fall into condemnation; the other is neither equal in all, nor in this life perfect in any, but growing up to perfection.” [13]

It is important to note the distinction made in the Reformed camp between justification and sanctification as the making of this distinction forms the main thrust between the divide between the Roman Catholic and Reformed understanding of Justification.

Imputation in the context of Scriptural language means to ascribe the status of righteous i.e to regard someone as having fulfilled the Law, or in other words ‘to justify’. It is in this nuance which the Reformed camp speaks of Christ’s righteousness (Christ fulfilling the Law) being imputed unto the believer. The believer is then looked upon by God as though the believer has fulfilled the Law himself.

Though a believer’s legal status may be right before God, the Apostle Paul rightly points out that this declaration of a believer’s justification in Christ is by no means a license to sin.[14] Sanctification, though distinct from Justification, always follows Justification. Sanctification therefore, in one of many understandings in the Reformed mind, is the continual working towards Holiness in conformity to the character of God as revealed in Jesus Christ.[15]

Much can be said about the nature and mechanism of imputation such as the double-imputation or whether it is only the Passive Obedience of Christ that is imputed. Once again, the author may do so in a future article.

Closing Notes

It is the author’s opinion that the divide between the Roman Catholic and Protestant understanding of Justification can mostly be characterised in one question:

Do the change in a believer’s legal status before God and the change in the believer’s disposition to the will of God come together or separately?

The answer to the above question, be it ‘together’ or ‘separately’, will then lead to one of the two views. As mentioned in the beginning, the aim of this article is to provide a basic framework by which the reader may use to understand the arguments employed by the various camps in their espousing of each doctrine in their own self-study.

The author notes that there is a lack of Scripture quoted in this article employed by both sides in support and against each position. This has been intentionally done so that the readers may be spurred to inculcate a Berean spirit and examine the Scriptures for themselves to see if these things are true [16].

Fides quarens intellectum.

 

[1] Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, 1.4.xiv

[2] Strong’s Greek Concordance #1343; Strong’s Hebrew Concordance #6666

[3] Exodus 40:12-15; Leviticus 16:4

[4] Catechism of the Catholic Church #153

[5] Catechism of the Catholic Church #1996

[6] Catechism of the Catholic Church #1999

[7] Hooker, Justification (Works V, 110.11 – 111.7)

[8] Canones Concilli Tridentini; De Justificatione, vii. viii.

[9] Canon IV, The Seventh Session of the Council of Trent

[10] Catechism of the Catholic Church #1030

[11] Catechism of the Catholic Church #1031

[12] McGrath, Reformation Thought: An Introduction pp.126

[13] Westminster Confession, Larger Catechism. Q.77

[14] Romans 6:1-14

[15] Goodwin, The Work of the Holy Ghost, Book VIII pp.390

[16] Acts 17:11

Introduction to Soteriology (Debates)

This article is a follow up from our previous articles, also on an introduction to soteriology, which focuses on:

i) Creeds & Confessions[1]

ii) Books[2]

This article contains links to recorded debates on the doctrine of salvation. Debates are a good way to assess the strengths and weaknesses of a position as the debaters will rebut and cross-examine one another.

Arminianism – Calvinism

Calvinism – Traditionalism

Arminianism – Traditionalism

*None at the time of writing




 

[1] “Introduction to Soteriology (Creeds & Confessions).” LaikosTheologos.com. Laikos Theologos. Accessed October 15, 2019.

https://laikostheologos.com/introduction-to-soteriology/

[2] “Introduction to Soteriology (Books).” LaikosTheologos.com. Laikos Theologos. Accessed October 15, 2019. https://laikostheologos.com/introduction-to-soteriology-books/



Facebook Discussion on the Atonement

I came across an interesting discussion on Facebook involving the atonement. The question revolved around whether or not Jesus has “forgiven and paid the price for those who are in hell.”

The original poster, in answering the question, said:

“Yes I do believe that Jesus has paid the price for them but has [sic] not forgiven because they didn’t respond in faith!

The provision is unlimited but the application is only by faith. So those who are in hell are not there because they are sinners & Christ did not provide an atonement for them but rather that Christ provided the atonement for them but they rejected it.”

The objector then replied, inter alia, the following:

“With all due respect, I think your position that [Jesus paid but they suffer for their rejection] fails for 2 main reasons: (A) Logical Reasons & (B) Biblical Reasons…

A. Logical Reasons

Logically the position is incoherent because it fails to account for those who never heard the gospel. Here are 3 questions to consider:

i. Did those who never hear the gospel reject it?

ii. Shouldn’t they be saved because Jesus died for them and they never rejected it?

iii. If your answer to (II) is “yes”, then why bother preaching the gospel? Ignorance would be bliss [Literally], wouldn’t it?

Furthermore, it would be a logical contradiction to claim Jesus died for all sins of all men and yet send them to hell for the sin of rejection. If Christ died for ALL sins then He also died for the sin of rejecting the gospel. Your only way out is to claim that rejecting Christ is not a sin? Do you want to take this exit route?

B. Biblical Reasons:

Biblically, people are sent to hell not for rejecting Christ but for their sins and disobedience:

“Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.” (Eph. 5:6)

In the context of Ephesians 5, a list of sins are presented, none of which have anything to do with rejecting the gospel. We find a similar list in Colossians 3 and Paul repeats the same warning

“For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience” (Colossians 3:6).

Nowhere does the Scripture teach that the provision is unlimited. It does teach, however, that faith itself is a gift of God (Eph. 2:8-9).”

The Logical Reasons Objection

The Incoherence Objection

i) Incoherence 1

One option to avoid the incoherence is to view things from a Molinistic framework[1] – namely that, before the foundation of the world, God middle knew which individuals and/or people groups would freely accept or freely reject the Gospel should it be presented to them.

In light of this knowledge, God actualizes a possible and feasible world in which some individuals who would freely reject the Gospel are not presented with the Gospel. Paul Copan puts it as such:

“God has arranged this world in such a way that those who never hear the gospel would not have responded to it even if they had heard it. Those who are beyond the reaches of the Gospel in the actual world could be those who would never have responded to the Gospel in any possible world.”[2]

These individuals are still deemed to have rejected the atonement which was provided for them because the atonement would have applied to them had they freely chosen to accept it.

Another option to avoid the incoherence is to embrace the inclusivist position in the context of those who have not heard the gospel. John Sanders explains that, for the inclusivist, “The unevangelized may be saved if they respond in faith to God based on the revelation they have.”[3]

Inclusivism advocates that “salvation found only in Jesus Christ is made universally available.”[4] This universal availability should not be confused with universalism which espouses that “no human being will be condemned or allowed to suffer pain and separation forever.”[5] Universalism teaches that all will be saved.

John Sanders provides some Scriptural support for inclusivism:

“Inclusivists glean from various biblical texts an optimism of salvation, for they see God working outside the bounds of ethnic Israel as well as the church. God made a universal covenant through Noah, and God’s choice to work through Abraham was for the purpose of blessing the nations (see Genesis 12:3). Scripture mentions several nations for whom God provided land by driving out the previous inhabitants (see Deuteronomy 2:5, 9, 19, 21–22; 2 Kings 5:1). The prophet Amos declared that God had performed events similar to the exodus of Israel for other nations (see Amos 9:7). Attention is drawn to the so-called “holy pagans” in scripture.[33] God seems to have looked favorably upon non-Israelites such as Melchizedek, Jethro, Job, and the Queen of Sheba. On several occasions Jesus commented on the extraordinary faith He discerned among Gentiles such as the Canaanite woman (see Matthew 15:21–8) and the Roman centurion (see Matthew 8:10). Though God was doing a special work in Israel, God was working and was known outside her borders.

The Gentile that inclusivists highlight is Cornelius, a God-fearing uncircumcised Gentile who prayed continually. One day an angel informed him that his prayers and alms were a memorial offering of which God took note, and he was given instructions to send for Peter (see Acts 10:4). Peter arrives and informs the household about the redemption in Jesus, whereupon the household is baptized in the name of Jesus. In light of these events, Peter declares, “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right, is welcome to Him” (see Acts 10:34–35). The welcome of God extends outside Israel and outside the church.”[6]

This view seems to also find support from Acts 17, Paul’s sermon on Mars Hill.

Acts 17:22-31 NASB

[22] Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects.

[23] For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.

[24] The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands;

[25] nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things;

[26] and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,

[27] that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;

[28] for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’

[29] Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.

[30] Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,

[31] because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”

Caveat: I do not know if this is a position held to by the original poster but from my understanding of incoherence 1 and inclusivism, in the context of those who have not heard the gospel, the latter would resolve the incoherence.

Caveat: The author does not hold to inclusivism and is concerned about views within the inclusivist camp that result in a reduced necessity to preach the Gospel.

ii) Incoherence 2 & 3

Incoherence 2 does not hold water because the original poster also explicitly said that those in hell “didn’t respond in faith.” This shows that a mere ignorance about the provision of the atonement of Christ would not be sufficient to save a person.

I will not address incoherence 3 in light of my observations regarding incoherence 2.

The Contradiction Objection

If indeed the original poster believes that those who are in hell are there only because they rejected Christ’s atonement, this would be inconsistent with the fact that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) and that “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). Death in Romans 6:23 is used in contrast to eternal life, indicating that death refers to spiritual death/separation from God. Thus, it is clear that because we are sinners, we are deserving of hell.

The position I suspect the original poster holds to, because of his use of the phrase “sinners,” is that those in hell are there because of their sin and though they were offered a way to avoid hell, by way of Christ’s atonement, they rejected it. This, of course, is merely my inference and is subject to correction by the original poster.

The logical contradiction raised by the objector arises because of a conflation of the provision and application of the atonement. In a previous article, I compiled 4 responses to John Owen’s Double Payment Argument.[7] Response 1, would be the most relevant to the discussion at hand:

“The provision and application of the atonement must be distinguished. After all, “Eph. 2:1-3 makes clear that even the elect are under the wrath of God, “having no hope” (v.12) until they believe.”4 However, “the moment the debt is paid the debtor is free, and that completely. No delay can be admitted, and no conditions can be attached to his deliverance.”5.

What can be deduced is that the atonement is only applied upon the profession of faith. “… as 2 Cor. 5:18-21 makes clear, reconciliation has an objective and subjective aspect to it. The death of Christ objectively reconciles the world to God in the sense that his justice is satisfied, but the subjective side of reconciliation does not occur until the atonement is applied when the individual repents of sin and puts faith in Christ.”6

Consider the Day of Atonement. It was for the sons of Israel for all their sins once every year (Leviticus 16:34). An Israelite applied the benefits of the annual atonement by humbling his soul and not doing any work on that day (Leviticus 16:29). If a person will not humble himself on that day, he will be cut off from his people (Leviticus 23:29). As for a person who does any work on that day, he will be destroyed from among the people (Leviticus 23:30).7″[8]

Further biblical examples, demonstrating a distinction between the provision and application of the atonement, are as follows:

i) “The blood of the Passover lamb (Ex. 12:6, 21) was provided for all of Israel (Ex. 12:3), without a hint of it being only for an ‘elect’ group within Israel.  But the fact that the blood of the Passover lamb was provided for all Israel didn’t automatically guarantee that all Israel would benefit from it.  The blood became effectual only after it was applied to the door posts (Ex. 12:7, 22); the blood itself didn’t save anyone.  Any Israelite who failed to apply the lamb’s blood to their doorpost would thus have failed to receive any benefit from the death of the Passover lamb, in spite of the fact that they could have, as they were provided for.”[9]

ii) “Because the people of Israel became impatient and complained against God and Moses (Num. 21:4-5), God sent fiery serpents among the people, and the serpents bit the people, so that many people died (Num. 21:6).  When the people acknowledged their sin, they asked Moses to pray to God for them (Num. 21:7). God answered Moses’ prayer, saying,

“‘Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.’  So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.” (Num. 21:8-9)

The bronze serpent was a provision for “everyone” and “anyone”. But the fact that the bronze serpent was provided for all Israel didn’t automatically guarantee that all Israel would benefit from it.  The bronze serpent became effectual only after someone looked at it by faith.”[10]

iii) “The cities of refuge were a provision for the manslayer (Num. 35:9-15). Furthermore, it was a provision for any manslayer – the people of Israel, and for the stranger, and for the sojourner (Num. 35:15).  But the fact that the cities of refuge were provided for any manslayer did not automatically guarantee that any manslayer would benefit from them.  The city of refuge was only effective as long as the manslayer entered, and stayed within, the boundaries (Num. 35:26-28).  Any manslayer who refused to either enter in (in the first place), or remain in, the cities of refuge would thus fail to receive any benefit from said cities, in spite of the fact that they could have, as provision was made for them.”[11]

It would not be a logical contradiction to say that Christ died for the sins of all men and yet some are sent to hell for rejecting the provision as Christ’s death does not necessitate an automatic application of the atonement.

Another way to possibly put it is that Christ’s death is sufficient for all but efficient/effectual for some, the latter being those who do not reject the provision/respond in faith.

Even the Synod of Dort used similar phraseology:

“Article 3: The Infinite Value of Christ’s Death

The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin; is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.”[12]

“Article 8: The Saving Effectiveness of Christ’s Death

For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son’s costly death should work itself out in all the elect, in order that God might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation. In other words, it was God’s will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father; that Christ should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit’s other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death). It was also God’s will that Christ should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith; that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and that he should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without spot or wrinkle.”[13]

G. T. Shedd, 19th century theologian, appears to have shared this view when he said:

“Christ’s death is sufficient in value to satisfy eternal justice for the sins of all mankind … Sufficient we say, then, was the sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of the whole world, and for the expiation of all the sins for all and every man in the world.”[14]

The Biblical Reasons Objection

I would agree with the first 4 paragraphs of the objector’s reply in the event the original poster does take the position that individuals are only in hell because of their rejection of the provision of the atonement.

With regards to whether the provision of the atonement is limited or unlimited, this is and has been a matter of immense debate.[15] This debate cannot be settled by way of a one liner assertion that the atonement is unlimited (the original poster’s position) or that it is limited (the objector’s position). It is even debated whether or not John Calvin himself held to unlimited atonement[16] or to limited atonement.[17]

The objector takes an overly simplistic position in arguing that “nowhere does Scripture teach that the provision is unlimited.” Ron Rhodes, a 4-point Calvinist, has a list of Bible passages hinting in favour of unlimited atonement.[18]

As for use of Ephesians 2:8-9 to argue that faith is a gift from God, this is also a debatable matter. Daniel Wallace, Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary,[19] has noted:

“[Ephesians 2:8-9] is the most debated text in terms of the antecedent of the demonstrative pronoun, τοῦτο. The standard interpretations include: (1) “grace” as antecedent, (2) “faith” as antecedent, (3) the concept of a grace-by-faith salvation as antecedent, (4) καὶ τοῦτο having an adverbial force with no antecedent (“and especially”).”[20]

Even John Calvin himself was of the opinion that, “… they commonly misinterpret this text, and restrict the word ‘gift’ to faith alone. But Paul is only repeating his earlier statement in other words. He does not mean that faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God, or that we obtain it by the gift of God.”[21]




[1] Molinism is a view of Divine Providence, advocated by Luis De Molina, which espouses inter alia that “[God’s] middle knowledge, although being eternal, reflects what the creature will do freely and depends on what it will do, thus it does not necessitate A doing B.” [Alexander Aichele, and Mathias Kaufmann, A Companion to Luis de Molina (BRILL, 2013), pp. 372-373]

[2] Paul Copan, “True for You, But Not For Me”: Deflating the Slogans that Leave Christians Speechless (Bethany, 1998), p. 128

[3] Salvation in Christ: Comparative Christian Views, ed. Roger R. Keller and Robert L. Millet (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2005), 299–325

[4] Gabriel J. Fackre, Ronald H. Nash, and John Sanders, What About Those Who Have Never Heard?: Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized (InterVarsity Press, 1995), p.22

[5] “Our Spiritual Perspective.” ChristianUniversalist.org. Accessed October 2, 2019.  https://christianuniversalist.org/beliefs/

[6] Salvation in Christ: Comparative Christian Views, ed. Roger R. Keller and Robert L. Millet (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2005), 299–325.

[7] “Collection of Responses to the Double Payment Argument.” LaikosTheologos.com. Accessed October 2, 2019. https://laikostheologos.com/collection-of-responses-to-the-double-payment-argument/

[8] Ibid.

[9] “Feedback: Arminians Limit the Power of the Atonement.” ArminianTheologyBlog.wordpress.com. Accessed October 2, 2019. https://arminiantheologyblog.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/feedback-arminians-limit-the-power-of-the-atonement

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] “Canons of Dort.” CRCNA.org. Accessed October 2, 2019. https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/canons-dort

[13] Ibid.

[14] William Greenough Thayer Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2 (Scribner, 1888), p. 464

[15] In favour of limited atonement, see e.g. From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective, eds. David Gibson, Jonathan Gibson (Crossway, 2013). In favour of unlimited atonement, see e.g. David L. Allen, The Extent of the Atonement: A Historical and Critical Review (B&H Publishing Group, 2016)

[16] “Calvin and Calvinism.” RTKendallMinistries.com. Accessed October 2, 2019. https://rtkendallministries.com/calvin-and-calvinism: “When I discovered for myself that John Calvin did not believe in limited atonement I was both thrilled and sobered … Calvin taught that Jesus died indiscriminately for all people. Calvin taught that although Jesus died for all people, He made intercession for the elect only. That is four and a half point Calvinism”;

See also Curt Daniel, “Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill” Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh, (1983), 819–22 which contains an extensive 50 page appendix entitled “Did John Calvin Teach Limited Atonement?” (pp. 776-828); P. L. Rouwendal, “Calvin’s Forgotten Classical Position on the Extent of the Atonement: About Sufficiency, Efficiency, and Anachronism,” WTJ 70 (2008), p. 328; David Ponter, “Review Essay (Part One): John Calvin on the Death of Christ and The Reformation’s Forgotten Doctrine of Universal Vicarious Satisfaction: A Review and Critique of Tom Nettles’ Chapter in Whomever He Wills,” Southwestern Journal of Theology, 55.1 (Fall, 2012): 138-158. Part Two can be found in SWJT 55.2 (Spring, 2013): 252-70

[17] See “Calvin, Indefinite Language, and Definite Atonement by Paul Helm.” Monergism.com. Accessed October 2, 2019. https://www.monergism.com/calvin-indefinite-language-and-definite-atonement-paul-helm; “John Calvin’s view of Limited Atonement – by Dr. Roger Nicole.” APuritansMind.com. Accessed October 2, 2019. https://www.apuritansmind.com/arminianism/john-calvins-view-of-limited-atonement/

[18] “The Extent of the Atonement—Limited Atonement versus Unlimited Atonement.” RonRhodes.org. Accessed October 2, 2019. http://ronrhodes.org/articles/the-extent-of-the-atonement.html

[19] “Daniel Wallace.” DTS.edu. Accessed October 2, 2019.  https://www.dts.edu/people/daniel-wallace/

[20] Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Zondervan, 1996), p.334

[21] John Calvin, Commentaries, Volume 11 (Eerdmans, 1959), p. 145



The Lord’s Prayer (Part 1)

Verse: Matthew 6:9

A) English Translations

 

KJV: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be Thy name

NASB: Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name

NLT: Our Father in heaven, may your name be kept holy

B) Greek

Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς· 

ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου

Source: https://www.nestle-aland.com/en/read-na28-online/text/bibeltext/lesen/stelle/50/60001/69999/

 


Source: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/6-9.htm

Continue reading “The Lord’s Prayer (Part 1)”

List of Non-Calvinist Theologians

The following are theologians, listed alphabetically, who are non-Calvinist in their soteriology. They may, and most probably do, differ on other areas of theology but at least in soteriology, they do not hold to what is commonly known as the Doctrines of Grace or TULIP.1

A

    • A. Philip Brown II
    • Adam Clarke
    • Adam Harwood
    • Adrian Rogers
    • A W Tozer
    • Allen Coppedge

B

    • Balthasar Hubmaier
    • Ben Witherington III
    • Bill T Arnold
    • Brian Abasciano

C

    • Charles Finney
    • Charles Swindoll
    • Chuck Smith
    • Clark Pinnock
    • C S Lewis
    • Craig Evans
    • Craig Keener

D

    • Daniel Steele
    • Daniel Whedon
    • Daniel Whitby
    • Dave Hunt
    • David Allen
    • David Arthur DeSilva
    • David Bentley Hart
    • David J A Clines
    • David Pawson
    • Dwight L Moody

E

 

F

    • Frank Turek
    • Frédéric Louis Godet
    • Fred Sanders

G

    • Gareth Cockerill
    • George Eldon Ladd
    • George Fox
    • G K Chesterton
    • Gordon Fee
    • Grant Osborne
    • Greg Boyd

H

    • Harry Ironside
    • H. Ray Dunning
    • Henry Thiessen
    • Herschel Hobbs

I

    • Ian Howard Marshall

J

    • Jack Cottrell
    • Jacob Arminius
    • James D G Dunn
    • J P Moreland
    • Jason E. Vickers
    • Jerry Walls
    • Jerry Vines
    • John Fletcher
    • John Goodwin
    • John Horn
    • John Lennox
    • John Miley
    • John Sanders
    • John Wesley
    • Jordan Cooper
    • Joseph Benson
    • Joseph Kenneth Grider
    • Joseph R Dongell
    • J Vernon McGee

K

    • Keith D. Stanglin
    • Kenneth Keathley
    • Kirk MacGregor

L

    • Leighton Flowers
    • Leonard Ravenhill
    • Leroy Forlines

M

    • Malcolm Yarnell
    • Matthew Pinson
    • Michael Brown
    • Michael Heiser
    • Mildred Bangs Wynkoop
    • Miner Raymond

N

    • Nathan Bangs
    • Norman Geisler2

O

 

P

    • Paige Patterson
    • Paul Copan
    • Paul Ellingworth
    • Paul R Eddy
    • Philip H. Towner

Q

 

R

    • Randolph S. Foster
    • Ravi Zacharias
    • Richard Lenski
    • Richard Watson
    • Robert Picirilli
    • Robert Shank
    • Robert W Wall
    • Roger Forster
    • Roger Olson

S

    • Scot McKnight
    • Stanley Horton
    • Stephen Ashby
    • Steve Gregg

T

    • Thomas Helwys
    • Thomas McCall
    • Thomas N. Ralston
    • Thomas Oden
    • Thomas Osmond Summers
    • Tim Mackie

U

 

V

    • Vic Reasoner

W

    • Wallie Criswell
    • William Burt Pope
    • William Greathouse
    • William J Abraham
    • William L Lane
    • William Lane Craig
    • William Klein

X

 

Y

 

Z

 

Editor’s Note: The list is not meant to be exhaustive and will be updated periodically.



Collection of Responses to the Double Payment Argument

In honour of the scholarship of Dr David Allen, of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary 3, who graced us in Malaysia with his presence at the Truth Matters Alliance conference 2018 2, we will be taking a look at John Owen’s Double Payment argument which Dr Allen has addressed extensively. Other cogent responses to the argument will also be presented alongside Dr Allen’s work.

The Double Payment Argument

John Owen put it as follows, “… God imposed His wrath due unto [Christ], and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men. If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no men be saved …

If the first, why, then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, “Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.” But this unbelief, is it a sin or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent due to it or not.”3

Responses to the Argument

i) It conflates the provision and application of the atonement

The provision and application of the atonement must be distinguished. After all, “Eph. 2:1-3 makes clear that even the elect are under the wrath of God, “having no hope” (v.12) until they believe.”4 However, “the moment the debt is paid the debtor is free, and that completely. No delay can be admitted, and no conditions can be attached to his deliverance.”5.

What can be deduced is that the atonement is only applied upon the profession of faith. “… as 2 Cor. 5:18-21 makes clear, reconciliation has an objective and subjective aspect to it. The death of Christ objectively reconciles the world to God in the sense that his justice is satisfied, but the subjective side of reconciliation does not occur until the atonement is applied when the individual repents of sin and puts faith in Christ.”6

Consider the Day of Atonement. It was for the sons of Israel for all their sins once every year (Leviticus 16:34). An Israelite applied the benefits of the annual atonement by humbling his soul and not doing any work on that day (Leviticus 16:29). If a person will not humble himself on that day, he will be cut off from his people (Leviticus 23:29). As for a person who does any work on that day, he will be destroyed from among the people (Leviticus 23:30).7

For more on this point, see “Feedback: Arminians Limit the Power of the Atonement” by Cartwright8 Other biblical examples wherein the provision and application of the atonement are distinguished, are examined.

ii) It confuses a commercial understanding of sin as debt with a penal satisfaction for sin

Carl Trueman recognises this point when he said, “It is… true that [John Owen’s] point here seems to rely on a crudely commercial theory of the atonement, but we must beware of misunderstanding this in crudely quantitative terms.”9

David Allen argues that “the metaphor [of debt] is pushed beyond its legitimate point of analogy and becomes, for Owen and Williams, the actual mechanism whereby sin is paid for. Williams’ dependence upon Owen’s treatment of the parable of the Unforgiving Servant in Matt 18 leads him to misinterpret the point of the parable. The context of the parable is not atonement but forgiveness between brothers by way of a commercial debt metaphor. The point of the parable is the mechanism for forgiveness, not the mechanism for satisfaction of sins …

The mistake is viewing God as a creditor from the fact that sin is metaphorically described as a debt (490-93). Sin as debt is about obligation, not about the death of Christ being a payment to a creditor (God). Nowhere in Scripture is God ever viewed as “creditor” who is paid a debt via the death of Christ.”10

For R. L. Dabney, A. A. Hodge, W. G. T. Shedd and Charles Hodge’s agreement with this critique, see “Double Jeopardy?” by Tony of Theological Meditations.11

iii) It quantifies the imputation of sin to Christ as if there is a ratio between all the sins of those Christ represents and the sufferings of Christ12

According to R. L. Dabney, “… sacrifice, expiation, is one-the single, glorious, indivisible act of the divine Redeemer, infinite and inexhaustible in merit. Had there been but one sinner, Seth, elected of God, this whole divine sacrifice would have been needed to expiate his guilt. Had every sinner of Adam’s race been elected, the same one sacrifice would be sufficient for all. We must absolutely get rid of the mistake that expiation is an aggregate of gifts to be divided and distributed out, one piece to each receiver, like pieces of money out of a bag to a multitude of paupers.”13

For more on this, see  also “Double Jeopardy?” by Tony of Theological Meditations.14

iv) What about original sin?

“[Garry] Williams’ tacit dependence upon Owen’s trilemma argument faces some insurmountable problems, not the least of which is the issue of original sin. Notice it is not original “sins” but original “sin.” If Christ died for original sin, then he died for at least one of the sins of the non-elect. If this is the case, then Owen’s argument is defeated for Owen must admit that Christ died for some of the sins (original sin) of all men.

It seems that either Owen must say that Christ died for some of the sins (original sin) of all men, or he must take the view that Christ only underwent punishment for some of the sins of some men (a position not listed in his trilemma).”15

James Daane also argues this exact same point in his journal article “What Doctrine of Limited Atonement?” The Reformed Journal 14:10 (December 1964), p.16.