Is Unbelief Sin, Non-Calvinist?

The following argument has not been sufficiently and consistently answered since it was first posed by John Owen over 300 years ago.


"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, or
3) Some of the sins of all men.

In which case it may be said: That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved. That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth. 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 is, 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!"

- John Owen
(The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, Book 3, Ch. 3)

A Youtube user named "Grasshopperjax" has attempted to make a rebuttal to this video and the arguments therein. Please watch his video if you have time.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CJLjVU6Jt4
I commend grasshopperjax for taking the time to make a response to this, but this is the best of what the other side has to offer, folks.


This is part of the DVD Amazing Grace: The History and Theology of Calvinism from The Apologetics Group. You can purchase this DVD here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0006B46K8?ie=UTF8&seller=A2131JY2A9OYGH...

Category:

Education

Tags:

• grasshopperjax
• sanderson1611
• calciumboy
• kingjamesvideoman
• calvinism
• arminianism
• calvinist
• arminian
• john
• calvin

[fakejohnwilkesbooth]

*groans* The premise of the video is a hideous non-sequitur. It hurts.

[LaneCh]

*groans* Pink elephants like to make butter in the Spring. It hurts.

(Both of our statements are meaningless in and of themselves, but I'm going to ask you to prove yours.)

[Strefanasha]

if all sin of the elect is paid for in the cross why are the calvinist elect not sinless.

you convince me that calvinism is rank heresy. i dont deny that you are as christian as the rest of us but you cannot know God personally when you so grossly misrepresent Him.

I am done here, your idolatrous commitment to the doctrine of a tyrant will not be shifted even by me for spiritual truth is spiritually discerned

[Strefanasha]

christ paid or my sin of unblief, and i am no calvinist. in personal relationship with the Spirt he, as my wonderful counsellor, is leading me to repent of my sin by personal persuasion, on the basis of the sacrifice of the cross. the cross did not remove my sin, tha is magical thinking, but it is the purchase price foe the couhselling tehSpirit gives me peronally

my free will is not anaddtion to salvation but a manifestation of it when lead by the Spirit

[Strefanasha]

@Strefanasha a "sin" paid for is a sin removed

I am no typist

[Strefanasha]

a skin paid for is a sin removed? if this is so then surely ALL calvinists are sinless. but if not all sins are removed as the paying for it (redemption) is different from the removal of htem (sanctification) then oine can have one's sin ands it still be there, ie unbelief.

if christ paid for all the sins of the elect then they do not sin. if sin remains either christ did not pay for them or he paid for the sins of sinners who atill sin, ie ALL

[Strefanasha]

when it coimes to works related pelagianism, theology is as we do not as we argue about. so when anyone is legalist he has forsaken christ so is pelagian. any hard working striving calvinist trying to show he is of the elect is a pelagian in how he lives as the rest of us: and we are a;l; pelagain if wer are carnal and take our religion seriously

[Strefanasha]

it is straw man to think that arminians must be remonstrance, and misunderstanding the nature of "paying for the sin"

no, our faith is not conjured up by our effort, my faith arose by personal encounter with the Holy SPirit, as did Paul on the Damascus road

the thinking here is that mans free will is seen to and to salvation. this is nonsense.

i cannot boast of my free will choice for without the personal encounter with the Spirto of Christ it NEVER would have happened

[Strefanasha]

actually calvinist thinking is magical, rigid and legalist.

paying for a sin is not the same as removing it. paying for the sin permits God the SPirit to come to me to lead me to repent and thus remove it.

it is removed in personal relationship, paid for that ALL might receive.

calvinism is abstract, as I said.

the problem is solved when personal relationship with the Spirit is real. Without this the whole gospel falls apart in contradictions

[Strefanasha]

jesus paid for the sins of EVERYBODY but the offer MUST be accepted personally. actually it is calvinism that leads to universalism if it is to escape the charge that God plays favourites. but that atonement is limited repudiates the truth that god is nit willing that ANY should perish.

the sins are paid for but not removed. THAT Comes with sanctification which come s from relationship with God.

calvinists make accepting christ a legalistic work to reject it

[010101zz]

To attempt to answer John Owen: I pose a question. Where is the Scripture that clearly states that the Lord Jesus died ONLY for the 'elect'? Does the Lord wish for some to perish? Can it be that for those who 'choose' Christ, in their freely chosen response to the Spirit of God, the Lord ONLY then will do all He can to keep those who choose Him in His love? If so, then what our Lord said according to the apostle John makes sense.

[DougCameraMan]

Excellent video. It's all 100% God, and 0% man. If God didn't save men then none would be saved.