“The Death of Death in the Death of Christ” by John Owen

As promised in my earlier post about Reformed theology, I have been exploring the Internet for more information on John Owen’s Book, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, and found several good resources. The most thorough and comprehensive summary of his book that I found is an article titled “John Owen’s Argument for Definite Atonement in The Death of Death in the Death of Christ: A Summary and Evaluation,” written by Andrew David Naselli, and published in Volume 14, Number 4 (Winter 2010) issue of The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology (SBJT 14.4 (2010)). The entire volume is devoted to Puritanism, containing six articles and one editorial on the subject by various authors, including the one mentioned above. The entire journal volume can be downloaded in PDF format from here, and the individual article by Andrew David Naselli can be downloaded separately from here. It is still a lengthy, 22 page article, typeset in small print, and not ideal for giving a succinct rebuttal to Owen’s main argument; but it is well written and informative, and recommended reading. I found several other less detailed summaries of his book on the Internet which present his essential argument more succinctly, which are more suitable for giving it a concise, succinct rebuttal. I found one article which summarises his core essential argument as follows (emphasis added):

“The most important point of this work is what is often missed in the present debate over unlimited vs. limited atonement. Owen’s thesis is that Christ’s death on the cross actually saved. The current debate focuses much on whether his death was for the elect or for the world, but I believe that the question is answered when it is framed in the matter of determining whether Christ’s death actually saved or only made salvation possible. As Scripture shows, and Owen proves, the primary (sole?) emphasis is on the actual accomplishment of salvation. Those for whom Christ died are saved; they are regenerated, justified, sanctified, etc. Christ’s work is perfect and that which he sought to accomplish has been fulfilled.” (Link)

That expresses Owen’s core argument. But it contains a logical fallacy, known as the False Dilemma fallacy, also known as the fallacy of the Excluded Middle, False Dichotomy, and Bifurcation. The fallacy is defined as follows:

“The False Dilemma fallacy occurs when an argument offers a false range of choices and requires that you pick one of them. The range is false because there may be other, unstated choices which would only serve to undermine the original argument. If you concede to pick one of those choices, you accept the premise that those choices are indeed the only ones possible. Usually, only two choices are presented, thus the term ‘False Dilemma’; however, sometimes there are three (trilemma) or more choices offered.” (Link)

Thus the argument as outlined above is false, because it presents a false dilemma. His argument is that if Christ’s Atonement made salvation possible for all, it therefore follows that he did not actually save anyone in particular, which is not a valid logical deduction. It ignores another option presented in scripture. The third option is that the Atonement of Jesus Christ (A) makes salvation possible for all without exception; and (B) it actually saves all those who choose to believe and repent of their sins. In order words, the Bible includes the element of human choice in salvation which Calvinism denies, and Owen excludes. Just because the Atonement made salvation possible for all, it does not logically follow that it did not actually save anyone in particular. That is simply not a logical conclusion. It made salvation possible for all; and at the same time it also actually saved all those who chose to believe and repent of their sins. The hidden fallacy there is that redemption must be unconditional for it to be “actual” or “real,” which is unbiblical. Calvinism is deterministic, whereas the Bible is not. Pretty much all the summaries presented by the other (Reformed) theologians contain the same fallacy, hidden in various ways. Another summary given by J.I. Packer for example expresses it in these words (emphasis added):

“Scripture describes the end intended and accomplished by the Father and the Son through the Son’s death as the full salvation (actual reconciliation, justification, sanctification, adoption and glorification) of the Church.”

That statement contains a hidden False Dilemma fallacy. The question is, what constitutes “the Church”? The biblical answer is, “the Church” consists of all those who have chosen to believe and repented of their sins. Calvinism denies that volitional element in human salvation enshrined in the Bible, therefore Packer tries to hide it. He then continues his argument as follows:

“The view that Christ’s death was a “general ransom” for all implies either that the Father and the Son have failed in their saving purpose, or that all will be saved, or that the purpose of Christ’s death was not to save any particular person absolutely.”

That is a false dilemma (or trilemma). There is a fourth option presented in the Bible, involving the element of human volition and choice, which he tries to hide or ignore. The fourth option is that the purpose of Christ’s death was to save absolutely all those who would choose to believe and repent of their sins. The redemption is made available to all; but We decide whether we want to partake of it through faith and repentance or not. He then continues:

“Since this third alternative, which the advocates of a “general ransom” embrace, is dishonouring to Christ and harmful to faith, Owen will oppose it.” (Link)

That is another false dilemma, or a continuation of the previous false dilemma. The third alternative he presents is NOT what “the advocates of a ‘general ransom’” embrace—at least, I don’t. The true biblical “third alternative” is the fourth option I presented above.

Another admirer of Owen’s work has expressed his theology in these words (emphasis added):

“Owen so clearly explains what Christ actually did on the cross; that He actually, purposely, and eternally secured salvation. Christ did not “offer a wonderful plan for our lives” as some say, but He became our substitute, paying for our sins (whose names were written in the Lamb’s Book of Life before the foundation of the world).” (Link)

The same False Dilemma is again presented here. It presents a false dichotomy, ignoring the third option presented in the Bible, that Jesus on the cross actually, purposely, and eternally secured salvation for all those who would voluntarily choose to believe and repent of their sins. The scope of the redemption is unlimited, but its application is limited by individual choices. Unlike the Bible, Calvinism is deterministic, therefore it tries to eliminate the option requiring human choice.

I found one website, however, which provides several summaries of Owen’s essential argument, as expressed by several theologians including John Owen himself, which can be seen here. Edwin Palmer for example, quoted on the site, expresses Owen’s theology concisely as follows (emphasis added):

“If the death of Jesus is what the Bible says it is – a substitutionary sacrifice for sins, an actual and not a hypothetical redemption, whereby the sinner is really reconciled to God – then, obviously, it cannot be for every man in the world. For then everybody would be saved, and obviously they are not. One of two things is true: either the atonement is limited in its extent [i.e. not intended to save everyone] or it is limited in its nature or power [i.e. defective, insufficient to save everyone]. It cannot be unlimited in both.”

That is a false dilemma. There is a third option. It can be (and is) unlimited in both—and limited only by the choices that we can and do freely make. The Atonement is unlimited both in its extent (i.e. intended to save anyone and everyone who chooses to believe and repent); and also unlimited its nature or power (i.e. able to save anyone and everyone who chooses to believe and repent). It is unlimited in both—but limited only by the choices that we freely make. We limit ourselves by the choices that we make in whether we obtain salvation through it or not.

The argument employs the same logical fallacy; a False Dilemma; that if the Atonement is not “limited,” then it cannot be “actual,” and therefore must be “hypothetical”. It equates a universal or unlimited Atonement with “hypothetical,” and a limited or definite Atonement with “actual”—based on the false premise that a sin atoned for must necessarily be absolved, remitted, and forgiven unconditionally—ignoring the biblical necessity of conditionality in the salvation process based on repentance and faith. That is a false dichotomy. It can be (and is) “actual” (and unlimited), without it being “hypothetical”. It is fully “actual” and “actualized” in the life those who choose to believe and repent; without rendering it in any way “hypothetical”.

His argument boils down to saying that if the Atonement is unlimited, then salvation must be universal, which does not logically follow. It is based on the (hidden) false premise that all sins atoned for by Jesus Christ must necessarily be absolved, forgiven, and remitted unconditionally, which is not biblical. It overlooks the role that human will plays in the salvation process—faith and repentance—which the Bible affirms, and Calvinism denies. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is unlimited in both its extent, as well as in its nature or power; but we have the freedom to deny ourselves the salvation it offers by the choices that we voluntarily and freely make.

An analogy will be helpful. Let us suppose that five men are stuck at the bottom of a pit, and can’t get out. A man walks past and decides to rescue them. He sends down a ladder, and invites them to climb out. Three of the men trust the rescuing man and his ladder, and climb out to safety. The other two don’t trust the man and his ladder and don’t climb, and are not rescued. How does that render the work of the “rescuer” any less “real,” or only “hypothetical”? It doesn’t. The Calvinistic counterpart of that analogy would work like this: five men are stuck at the bottom of a pit, and can’t get out. A man walks past, and decides to arbitrarily rescue two of the men, and leave the rest stranded. So he sends down a ladder to the bottom of the pit, climbs down, ties up the two men whom he has arbitrarily chosen, carries them out to safety, pulls up the ladder, and abandons the remaining three to destruction—and he does so entirely by an arbitrary decision. That is the Calvinistic model of salvation. And the author of that paragraph considers this second model to be “actual” and “real” salvation; while he considers the first model to be only “hypothetical”.

Another (shorter) quote from J.I. Packer presented on the site expresses it most concisely of all, in these words (emphasis added):

“Calvary not merely made possible the salvation of those for whom Christ died [i.e. the “elect”]; it ensured that they would be brought to faith, and their salvation made actual.”

The same false dilemma is again presented here. It ignores a third option: that Calvary not only made possible the salvation of those for whom Christ died (which is everyone); it also ensured the salvation of those who by their own will chose to believe and repent, and made their salvation actual.

Calvinism turns the biblical doctrine on its head. The Bible makes faith and repentance a condition for salvation. Calvinism makes it a consequence of salvation. The Bible says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Calvinism says, “He that is saved shall believe and be baptized!” When the Bible says, “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” Calvinism says, “You will only repent if you are already saved!” Calvinism is the antithesis of the gospel message of the Bible. It turns it on its head. It turns it around to its opposite end. It is the logical antithesis, the opposing expression of it.

John Owen himself, however, has expressed his theological reasoning best of all, found on the same website, as follows (emphasis added):

“The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:

“(1)  All the sins of all men

“(2)  All the sins of some men

“(3)  Some of the sins of some men

“In which case it may be said:

“A) That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so none are saved.

“B) That if the second is true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.

“C) But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

“You answer, because of unbelief. I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not? If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins.”

That is his main argument—which all the others have emulated as the ultimate expression of Definite (Limited) Atonement. If that reasoning can be refuted or falsified, his entire theology is falsified, and his book is made superfluous and redundant; because everything else he has said in support of his theology is an adjunct to that argument. What makes Owen’s own presentation of his argument particularly intriguing is that he appears to be aware of the False Dilemma fallacy that his argument is susceptible to, anticipates it, and tries to get round it. But he does so by committing another logical fallacy so glaringly obvious that none of his followers subsequently have been willing to repeat it. The logical fallacy that he now commits is a fallacy of circular reasoning known as Begging the Question. The logical fallacy of Begging the Question is defined in a Wikipedia article on the subject as follows:

“In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument’s premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. It is a type of circular reasoning: an argument that requires that the desired conclusion be true. This often occurs in an indirect way such that the fallacy’s presence is hidden, or at least not easily apparent.” (Link)

That is the logical error that John Owen is committing. His argument can be summed up in a series of logical steps as follows:

1. All sins that are atoned for by Jesus Christ must necessarily be absolved and remitted, and therefore be forgiven (unconditionally).

2. Unbelief (and impenitence) are themselves sins.

3. If Jesus atoned for all the sins of all men, then he also atoned for their sins of unbelief and impenitence.

4. Therefore if Jesus atoned for all the sins of all men, then all men’s sins are remitted and forgiven, and therefore all men are redeemed from all their sins (unconditionally), and all must be saved.

That is how he presents his argument, which is circular and “begs the question”. Premise #1 is an assumption that needs to be proved, not just presumed or taken for granted. The Bible does NOT teach that “All sins that are atoned for by Jesus Christ must necessarily be absolved and remitted unconditionally”. The Bible makes salvation and redemption conditional on faith and repentance. You cannot now go back, and rebuild that conditionality criterion (the absence of faith and repentance) back into the original argument as a sin already atoned for and paid for, and thus by so doing to cancel out the “conditionality” criterion. That is circular reasoning, and renders the argument invalid. That falsifies his theology completely, and renders his entire argument (and book) invalid. I am sure some readers will be wondering how that argument alone can invalidate a 300 page book? The answer is that everything else he has said in his book is an adjunct to the validity of that argument. For example in his book he spends a lot of time analyzing and examining the scriptural passages relevant to the subject, and drawing his own conclusions from them. Andrew David Naselli devotes 3 pages of his article (pp. 67–69) to discussing Owen’s scriptural argumentations. They may appear to be impressive to the biblically uninformed; but those who know their Bibles well can see that his interpretations are forced, and are an attempt to read his theology into the Bible, rather than obtain it from the Bible. He has already predetermined what his theology will be, and then attempts to shoehorn it into the Bible by any means possible. For example he dismisses those verses in which Jesus is portrayed as having died for the sins of all men, or for the sins of the whole world, or even for the sins of those who are not saved, with very dubious and questionable argumentation. One obvious theological mistake he makes for example is that he confuses “Atonement” with “intercession”. The Atonement is universal, and covers the sins of all men; but intercession is not. Jesus atoned for the sins of all men without exception; but he intercedes at the throne of grace only on behalf of those who choose to believe and repent. Just because intercession is not universal, it does not follow that Atonement is not universal. They are two different things. J.I. Packer, who appears to be absolutely enamored and besotted with Owen’s book, in his introductory essay (quoted on several sites promoting the book, such as here, here, and here) praises it in glowing terms in these words:

“It is safe to say that no comparable exposition of the work of redemption as planned and executed by the Triune Jehovah has ever been done since Owen published his in 1684. None has been needed. Owen’s interpretation of the texts is sure; his power of theological construction is superb; nothing that needs discussing is omitted, and no arguments for or against his position have been used since his day which he has not himself noted and dealt with. Owen’s work is a constructive broad-based biblical analysis of the heart of the gospel, and must be taken seriously as such. Nobody has a right to dismiss the doctrine of the limitedness of the atonement as a monstrosity of Calvinistic logic until he as refuted Owen’s proof that it is part of the uniform biblical presentation of redemption, clearly taught in plain text after plain text. And nobody has done that yet.”

Well, I think that I have just done that! See also an earlier post I wrote on limited Atonement nearly four years ago here. I hope that this brief analysis will spur others well versed in scripture to write a more comprehensive rebuttal to Owen’s heretical book (which is what it is), and put it to rest once for all.

It is also a very abusive work towards those of a different theological point of view. Packer describes his book as “polemical,” which is an understatement. I describe it as “unchristian”. If he is right, and knows that he is right, and has a convincing argument to put forward, and is confident about it, he would have no need to be abusive towards those of a different persuasion. People who act in that way, it is usually because they are not sure of the truth and validity of their own argument, and try to make up for it by employing that kind of abusive rhetoric towards those of a different persuasion. John Owen has an agenda. His motives are not sincere. His aim is not merely to know, discern, or disseminate truth; but to defeat those whom he considers to be his theological adversaries by any means possible—even if “truth” is sacrificed or compromised in the process.

I will conclude this post with the following summary of Owen’s argument given by Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834–1892), who was a very influential and colorful British Baptist preacher and theologian of his time. The quote comes from the same site where the last few quotes were given (emphasis added):

“We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men.

“Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They certainly [say], ‘No, certainly not.’ ”

Wrong! That is not what I would say! That is not how I would answer that question. My answer to that question would be, that “Christ died to secure the salvation of all men who chose to believe in him and repent of their sins”. If all men on earth, and throughout the rest of the universe, chose to believe and repent of their sins without exception, the Atonement of Jesus Christ would be sufficient to secure the complete salvation and redemption of every one of them without exception. If they are not, it is entirely their own choice; and nobody is “predestined” to salvation or damnation. He then continues:

“We ask them the next question: Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer, ‘No.’ ”

Wrong again! That is not how I would answer that question either. My answer to that question would be, that “Christ died to secure the salvation of any (and every) man in particular (and in general) who chooses to believe and repent of his sins”. If anyone is not, it is entirely his choice, and nobody is “predestined”. He then continues:

“They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say, ‘No. Christ has died that any man may be saved if’—and then follow certain conditions of salvation.

“Now who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as infallibly to secure the salvation of anybody.”

Wrong again! Very wrong! Christ died to infallibly secure the salvation of anyone and everyone who chooses to believe in him and repent of his sins. He then continues:

“We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ’s death; we say, ‘No, my dear sir, it is you that do it.’ ”

Wrong! He is the one who limits it. Christ died to secure the salvation of anyone who chooses to believe and repent of his sins. That includes anyone and everyone in the universe who chooses to, decides to, and wants to; and no one is predestined. He continues:

“We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it…

I would rather believe a limited atonement that is efficacious for all men for whom it was intended, than a universal atonement that is not efficacious for anybody, except the will of men be added to it.”

That sums it up very nicely! Calvinism is deterministic. The will of man has no role to play in anyone’s salvation or damnation. Everything is predetermined and predestined; which is contrary to everything that is taught in the Bible from start to finish, from the beginning to the end, from Genesis to Revelation. When Jesus says, “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:3, 5), that is an invitation to a volitional act. When he says, “Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46), that is an invitation to a volitional act. When he says, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 7:21), that is an invitation to a volitional act. His Sermon on the Mount is an invitation to a volitional act. His parables and preachings, and everything he taught and instructed others to do to be saved (e.g. Matt. 25:31–46) were invitations to a volitional act. That is what is enshrined in the Bible from start to finish, from the beginning to the end, from Genesis to Revelation.

Calvinism is a negation of everything that is taught in the Bible from start to finish, from the beginning to the end. It is an evil abomination. It is the most corrupt, evil, damnable, abominable, perverse, pernicious, perfidious, demonic, Satanic heresy that has ever arisen in Christendom since it came into existence. It is worse than the Arian heresy of the fourth century. The Arian heresy denied the divinity of Jesus Christ; Calvinism turns God into an evil monster barely distinguishable from the devil. And it has persuaded an awful lot of deceived and misguided people to believe it.

The core essential element of Owen’s argument is that all sins atoned for by Christ must necessarily be absolved, remitted, forgiven unconditionally; whereas the Bible makes that conditional on faith and repentance. Hence Owen (and others in agreement with him) have been employing logical fallacies, hidden in various ways, to obscure, cancel out, or eliminate that conditionality element enshrined in the Bible. That is because faith and repentance are volitional acts; whereas Calvinism is deterministic; therefore it tries to avoid all elements of human will and choice in the salvation process. Whether you are saved or damned, you have no control or choice in the matter; all has been predetermined and predestined beforehand. That is the abomination of Calvinism, which is 100% unbiblical, and is anything but.

More on Psalms 14

After posting my previous message about Reformed theology, I thought some additional comments on Psalms 14 might be appropriate. Psalms 14 is not all that Calvinistic and Evangelical theologians might like it to be. One of the rules of sound biblical exegesis is that you take into consideration the genre of the passage you are examining. You don’t exegete poetry in the same way you would exegete prose, because poetry makes much use of simile, metaphor, deliberate omissions, and exaggerated speech to achieve a desired effect that is not common to ordinary prose. The Psalms are poetry, and you don’t read, or try to understand them in the same way that you would a piece of historical narrative, or a didactic prose. Psalms 14 begins by addressing “the fool,” which in biblical terms is equivalent to the “unrighteous”:

Psalms 14:

1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none [of “the fool”] that doeth good.

Then in the next two verses it makes it sound as though it is now addressing everybody on the planet without exception—when in fact it is still addressing just “the fool”. That is the language of poetry:

Psalms 14:

2 The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.

3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Those are the verses that have tripped up the Reformed and Evangelical theologians into thinking that it is saying that nobody ever is or can be righteous. But that is the exaggerated language of poetry. The next two verses make it clear that the previous two verses are not meant to be taken that way, but are still referring to “the fool,” or the “workers of iniquity” mentioned in verse 4, which is made clear enough by contrasting it with the “generations of the righteous” in verse 5:

Psalms 14:

4 Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the Lord.

5 There were they [the “fools,” or “workers of iniquity”] in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous.

That clarifies the meaning of the previous two verses. If nobody is righteous, according to verses 2 and 3, how do you explain verse 5? If nobody in the world ever is or can be righteous, which is the Calvinistic interpretation, where did the “generation of the righteous” come from in verse 5? Is the Psalm contradicting itself? It appears to be, because it is saying one thing In verses 2 and 3, and the opposite in verse 5. Which is it, and how do we resolve the contradiction? One of those two statements can’t be saying what it appears to be. So which one is it, and how do we know? We find the answer by comparing and contrasting it with other similar passages in the Psalms first, and in the rest of the Bible second that clarify them, as demonstrated in the examples given in my previous post on Reformed theology. If 99% of the Bible is saying one thing, and one odd passage appears to be saying something different, we go by the 99%, and use that to correctly understand the odd 1%. We create our theology on the basis of the 99%, and adjust the 1% with the help of the 99%, not the other way. Calvinism does it backwards. It builds its theology on the basis of the 1%, and turns a blind eye to the 99%. So Psalm 14 doesn’t teach what Calvinistic and Reformed theologians like to think it does.

If nobody ever is or can be righteous, how was Cornelius found righteous before God, who wasn’t even a believer, or a Christian or a Jew, but a pagan, and a believer in a polytheistic religion, at the time when he was visited by an angel (no less), who told him that he had been found righteous before God (Acts 10:2, 4, 22, 30–31, 34–35)? Whom should we believe more, Calvinism or the Bible? Or how do you explain Romans 2:6–16, which categorically states that you don’t even have to be a believer or a Christian to be saved, but simply to act in righteousness, and do what is good and right in the sight of God? A pagan who acts in righteousness out of a good conscience will be saved; whereas a “Christian” who does wickedly will be condemned. That is what Paul is saying in Romans 2:6–16. Which should I believe more, Calvinism or the Bible? Calvinism draws its support (erroneously) from 1% of the Bible, while turning a blind eye to 99% which speaks against it. And they are fanatical about it, and they think that they are “saved”.

Good, Sound, Biblical Doctrine for a Change!

Very well reasoned. Couldn’t find fault with that!

Does God Love the Sinner?

I came across the above video in which Stephen Nichols of Ligonier Ministries responds to the question, “Is it true that God ‘loves the sinner but hates the sin’?” to which he gives the following reply:

“You know, you hear this all the time, don’t you. And it comes under the category of, ‘We would like to try to help out God.’ There are elements to the revelation of God that are difficult for us to take; and one of them is anytime we associate the word ‘hate’ with God. It is hard for us to do that. But here is what we have; we have it in Scripture. So this idea that God hates the sin, loves the sinner, is contrary to two Psalms; and also contrary to the opening verses of the book of Malachi, ‘Esau have I hated, Jacob have I loved.’ We have to be very careful that we don’t think somehow we help God by improving His PR for folks. So we have to be governed here by the text. Now, I don’t think that means we run around saying, ‘God hates these particular sinners, God hates this particular group,’ and hold banners up, and parade up and down the street, saying, ‘God hates (fill-in the social group)’. I don’t think that is the call for us, but neither do I think there is merit in that phrase. What we do need to talk about is that I was a worse sinner than anyone that we want to say God hates; we all were. And to understand, you know, R.C. said this how many times? It is one sin, just the smallest sin is an affront to the holiness of God, and just brings down the thundering wrath of God upon us. And when we slip into these kind of statements, we think we are doing God a favor, but we are not doing sinners any favor, because we are not helping them see the wrath of God, we are not helping them see what that means. And until they see that, they don’t see their true need for a substitute, and they don’t fully understand what Christ was doing on the cross. So, sometimes we have to be careful in how we want to help God’s PR.”

There are several exegetical (and linguistic) errors made in that commentary. There are a number of passages in the Bible (not many, as he has pointed out) which suggest that God “hates” sinners; and there are also other passages (more in fact) which suggest that God loves sinners! To focus only on the first set of scriptures, and ignore the second, is not helpful in arriving at a sound interpretation. Sound doctrine is obtained when all relevant passages of scripture are considered. I start with the verses which suggest that God “hates” sinners:

Psalm 5:

5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

Psalm 11:

5 The Lord trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

Malachi 1:

2 I have loved you, saith the Lord. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob,

3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

There is a linguistic element here that needs to be resolved before the theological one can be considered. The word “hate” as used in the biblical narrative, and in the OT especially, is a bit nuanced, and it doesn’t have the same kind of meaning that are associated with it in today’s English. The following verses illustrate the point:

Genesis 29:

30 And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years.

31 And when the Lord saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren.

32 And Leah conceived, and bare a son, and she called his name Reuben: for she said, Surely the Lord hath looked upon my affliction; now therefore my husband will love me.

33 And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Because the Lord hath heard I was hated, he hath therefore given me this son also: and she called his name Simeon.

The word “hate” in the above passage does not mean what it does in our everyday English. It simply means that he loved her less. He didn’t favor her quite as much as the other one. He still loved both of them, but one of them less than the other (because she wasn’t as pretty). It certainly doesn’t mean that he harboured some kind of ill will or malice towards the less favoured one—which is what the word “hate” conveys to us in modern English. Here is another example:

Deuteronomy 21:

15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:

16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:

17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.

Again in these verses the word “hate” doesn’t have the same meaning, or have the same nuances associated with it that it does in today’s English. It simply means “loved less”. This nuanced meaning of “hate” is also found in the New Testament. Here is a quote:

Luke 14:

26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

In this verse Jesus is not advising his disciples to break the fifth commandment, to “Honour thy father and thy mother” (Exod. 20:12); and which himself reiterates several times in the rest of the NT (Matt. 15:4; 19:19; Mark 7:10; 10:19; Luke 18:20; Eph. 6:2). The word “hate” in Luke 14:26 simply means to love Jesus more, or give deference to him more, so as not to be afraid of offending the others for the sake of Jesus if need be. If your father and mother don’t want you to follow Jesus for example, you still follow Jesus, even if that means that you offend them by so doing. It doesn’t mean that you literally “hate” your father and mother etc., in the sense of harboring malice or ill will towards them—which is the meaning it conveys in modern English. It doesn’t mean that we should be disrespectful towards them either, while obeying that commandment. When it says that God “hates” sinners, it is meant to be understood in that sense of the term—meaning that he hates their sinfulness; but still loves their souls; and wants them to repent and be saved. There are many biblical passages that confirm this:

Romans 5:

8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

So God loved sinners enough that he wanted to die and atone for their sins, so they could repent and be saved. Here is another:

John 3:

16 For God so loved the world [of sinners], that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Therefore God loves sinners! And he loves them enough to be willing to die on the cross to atone for their sins, so they could be redeemed and be saved. Here is another:

John 15:

13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

1 John 4:

10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us [as sinners], and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

The same thing is taught here. God loves sinners, and loves them enough to want to die for and atone for their sins; but he disapproves of their sinfulness; and wants them to repent so they can be forgiven and be saved. Here is another:

Matthew 5:

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

In other words, God does not discriminate between sinners and saints when it comes to dispensing his daily favors and blessings on them—for a good reason. The reason is that he loves the soul of the sinner as much as the soul of the saint, and he wants to grant them the chance to repent of their sins and be saved. Peter has expressed it in these words:

2 Peter 3:

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Again we come to the same thing: God loves the soul of the sinner as much as the soul of the saint, and wants to give them as much chance and opportunity to repent and be saved as this brief mortal probation makes possible, before that window of opportunity is closed, and we enter judgement. But the choice is still theirs. Nothing is imposed on anyone. There is no “predestination” and no “irresistible grace”. And in case anyone has been wondering if this is just a New Testament doctrine, it is found in the Old Testament too:

Ezekiel 18:

23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

Ezekiel 33:

11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way [repent] and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

So it is the verdict of both Testaments that God loves the soul of the sinner every bit as much as the soul of the saint, and desires their salvation and redemption, and grants them all the chance and opportunity they need to realize that ideal before it is too late. But the choice is always theirs; and no one is compelled nor predestined.

In that commentary Stephen Nichols has also given a quote from R.C. Sproul that needs to be discussed separately. The quote is as follows:

“And to understand, you know, R.C. said this how many times? It is one sin, just the smallest sin is an affront to the holiness of God, and just brings down the thundering wrath of God upon us.”

What that is implying is that all sins in the sight of God are equal. There is no distinction between greater sins and lesser sins, major sins and minor sins. A one-time shoplifting carries the same penalty in the sight of God as a highway robbery, or a violent burglary; and insulting someone in a fit of anger is as heinous a crime in the judgement of God as adultery, rape, or murder, and carries the same punishment. That is not borne out by the scriptures. All sins are not equal. Some sins are more heinous in the sight of God than others, and carry a greater punishment. Some sinners will be beaten with “many stripes,” while others will be beaten with “few stripes” (Luke 12:47–48); and some sins are forgivable in the next life, and some are not (Matt. 12:31–32). Inherent in the idea of being judged “according to our works” (Rev.20:12–13) is that the judgement will be proportional to the “work”. Greater acts of good will carry a greater “reward” in heaven (Matt. 5:12; Luke 6:23); while greater acts of evil will carry a greater punishment. Some punishments are permanent, as in the case of the unpardonable sin; while other punishments come to an end after one has paid the “uttermost farthing” (Matt. 5:26). It is not a “one size fits all,” like it teaches in the Calvinism.

It also ignores the biblical teaching that God is “merciful and gracious, long suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth” (Exod. 34:6); meaning that he is merciful and forgiving, and readily forgives sin and iniquity when repented of. His primary disposition is not to “bring down his thundering wrath” on people; but to forgive them their sins at the first hint of genuine repentance. The god of Calvinism is the God of “thundering wrath;” whereas the God of the Bible is the God of forgiveness, gentleness, mercy, compassion and grace. He is “longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth;” and “takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked,” but wants them to “turn” from their “evil ways” and “live”. He mourns and weeps when they are punished for their sins (Matt. 23:37; Luke 13:34). He takes “no pleasure” in it. The god of Calvinism, on the other hand, delights in the punishment of the wicked, and rubs his hand with glee when they are burned forever in hell.

So the bottom line is that God loves the soul of the sinner as much as the soul of the saint, and desires their salvation and redemption as much as the other’s. But the choice is theirs; and God gives them all the chance and opportunity they need to realize that if they want to. No one is compelled either way. This doesn’t mean that God condones their sins; but that he loves them enough to want them to repent, be forgiven, and be saved; and “joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance” (Luke 15:7). God’s desire is that all might come to repentance and be saved, as Peter says (2 Peter 3:9), not just the “elect”. Stephen Nichols in his commentary has seriously failed to grasp the biblical theology of redemption, and God’s love for all mankind, sinners and saints alike. That is what Calvinism does to people I guess. It numbs the mind, dulls the intellect, and distorts the thinking process so that the most obvious truths, and plainest declarations of scripture become inaccessible and unintelligible.

___________________

P. S.

After posting the above, I came across the following video by R.C. Sproul and others which corrects my first impressions. So kudos to R.C. Sproul et al. for getting that doctrine right:

https://youtu.be/T01LZfKFkAU