Our Foundation of Grace (Owen)

In one part of his exposition of Psalm 130, John Owen discussed receiving forgiveness and being assured of it.  One of his “rules” was this: “Mix not foundation and building-work together.”  By this Owen meant that the Christian’s foundation of forgiveness and acceptance with God is not by works, but by grace alone and found in Christ alone.  Here’s what he wrote:

“Our foundation in dealing with God is Christ alone, mere grace and pardon in him.  Our building is by holiness and obedience, as the fruits of that faith by which we have received the atonement.

And great mistakes there are in this matter, which bring great entanglements on the souls of men. Some are all their days laying the foundation, and are never able to build upon it any comfort to themselves or usefulness to others; and the reason is, because they are mixing with the foundation stones that are fit only for the building. They will be bringing their obedience, duties, mortification of sin, and the like, to the foundation. These are precious stones to build with, but unmeet to be first laid, to bear upon them the whole weight of the building.

The foundation is to be laid, as was said, in mere grace, mercy, and pardon in the blood of Christ. This the soul is to accept of and to rest in as mere grace, without the consideration of any thing in itself, but that it is sinful and obnoxious unto ruin. This it finds a difficulty in, and would gladly have something of its own to mix with it. It cannot tell how to fix these foundation-stones without some cement of its own endeavors and duty; and because these things will not mix, they spend a fruitless labor about it all their days.

But if the foundation be of grace, it is not at all of works; for “otherwise grace is no more grace. ” If any thing of our own be mixed with grace in this matter, it utterly destroys the nature of grace; which if it be not alone, it does not exist at all….

This, then, is the soul to do who would come to peace and settlement.  Let it let go of all former endeavors, if it has been engaged unto any of that kind, and let it alone receive, admit of, and adhere to, mere grace, mercy, and pardon, with a full sense that in itself it has nothing for which it should have an interest in them, but that all is of mere grace through Jesus Christ: ‘Other foundation can no man lay.’ Depart not hence until this work be well over. Cease not from an earnest endeavor with your own heart to acquiesce in this righteousness of God, and to bring your souls unto a comfortable persuasion that “God for Christ’s sake hath freely forgiven you all your sins. “

This is a great reminder of that biblical truth that we are justified, forgiven, and accepted by God only through Christ and only because of God’s grace (Rom 3-4, Gal 2-3, Eph 2, etc.).  Our justification, forgiveness, and acceptance are not in any way dependent upon our works, deeds, or merits.  As we begin to grow in understanding of this foundational truth, our assurance also grows and we learn more about what it means to give God all the glory.

The above quote is found in John Owen’s exposition of Psalm 130, chapter 13, rule 7.

Shane Lems
Hammond, WI

Definite Atonement and Christ’s Intercession (Owen)

One of the major biblical reasons why I believe and teach the doctrine of limited atonement (better: definite atonement) has to do with Jesus’ work of salvation.  Specifically, the Bible teaches that Jesus’ obedience, suffering, and death is very much connected to his resurrection, ascension, and intercession (Is. 53:12b, Rom. 8:33-34).  Those for whom Jesus obeyed, suffered, and died are the same ones for whom he rose, ascended, and intercedes.  John Owen made this argument in The Death of Death, where he says that Christ’s oblation and his intercession are intimately connected:

“…They are both alike intended for the obtaining and accomplishing the same entire and complete end proposed, that is, the effectual bringing of many sons to glory, for the praise of God’s grace.  …The object of the one is of no larger extent than the object of the other.  In other words, Christ intercedes on behalf of the ones he offered himself for, and only those, as he says himself in John 17:19.

…The sole end why Christ procured anything by his death was that it might be applied to them for whom it was so procured.  The sum is, that the oblation and intercession of Jesus Christ are one entire means for the producing of the same effect, the very end of the oblation being that all those things which are bestowed by the intercession of Christ, and without whose application it should certainly fail of the end proposed in it….”

We cannot say that Christ died for all and only intercedes for some, since Paul said that Christ who died for us also intercedes for us (Rom. 8:33-34).  Again, here’s Owen:

“That he died for all and intercedeth only for some will scarcely be squared to this text, especially considering the foundation of all this, which is (verse 32) the love of God which moved him to give up Christ do death for us all; upon which the apostle infers a kind of impossibility in not giving us all good things in him;  which how it can be reconciled with their opinion who affirm that he gave his Son for millions to whom he will give neither grace nor glory, I cannot see.

The extent of Christ’s atonement matches the extent of his intercession.  His atonement is limited to the elect, as is his intercession.  It’s not theological nitpicking; this has to do with the glorious work of Christ!  We never want to detract or subtract from Christ’s work.  Furthermore, it is a great comfort to know that Jesus definitely died for me and now definitely intercedes for me! He left nothing undone in the work of redemption.  So I can rest comfortably in his finished work.

The above quotes (edited for readability and length) are found in Owen’s The Death of Death, p. 68-70.

Shane Lems

A Dilemma of Universalism (Owen)

John Owen’s classic, The Death of Death, is not the easiest book to read, but it sure is worth the effort!  Since I’ll be preaching through the doctrines of grace later this Summer, I’m reading Owen’s book again as part of sermon preparation.  Here’s a helpful section I ran across this morning.  Owen said this is one of the dilemmas of Universalism:

God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for
1) either all the sins of all men,
or
2) all the sins of some men,
or
3) some sins of all men.

If the last (3), some sins of all men, then  all men have some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God enter into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight: “If the LORD should mark iniquities, who should stand?” Ps. 130:3. We might all go to cast all that we have “to the moles and to the bats, to go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty,” Isa. 2:20, 21.

If the second (2), that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world.

If the first (1), (all the sins of all men) 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 it is not sin, why should they be punished for it? If it is sin, then either Christ underwent the punishment due to it or he did not. If he did, then why must that hinder them from partaking of the fruit of his death more than their other sins for which he died?  If he did not undergo the punishment do to the sin of unbelief, then did he not die for all their sins.

Let them choose which part they will.

NOTE: I’ve edited the above a bit to make it easier to read.  The quote can be found in John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 10 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.), 173–174.

Shane Lems
Hammond, WI

Definite Atonement and Christian Comfort (Owen)

In Chapter seven of The Death of Death John Owen showed how Jesus’ atoning sacrifice (his “oblation”) is tightly connected with his intercession.  Owen argued that rather than say Jesus died for all and failed in his aim and design, we should agree with Paul, “grounding the assurance of our eternal glory and freedom from all accusations upon the death of Christ, and that because his intercession for us does inseparably and necessarily follow it.”  Owen then quoted Rom. 8:33-34 and wrote,

“Here is an equal extent of the one and the other; those persons who are concerned in the one are all of them concerned in the other.”

In other words, those for whom Jesus died are the same people for whom he intercedes.

A few pages later Owen noted that if a person separates and divides Jesus’ atoning sacrifice (oblation) from his intercession, that person cuts off all comfort the Christian has of assurance that Christ died for him.  Positively speaking,

“The main foundation of all the confidence and assurance whereof in this life we may be made partakers (which amounts to ‘joy unspeakable, and full of glory’) ariseth from this strict connection of the oblation and intercession of Jesus Christ – that by the one he has procured all good things for us, and by the other he will procure them to be actually bestowed, whereby he does never leave our sins, but follows them into every court, until they be fully pardoned and clearly expiated (Heb. 9:26).  He will never leave us until he has saved to the uttermost them that come unto God by him.”

This isn’t theological nitpicking or dry, dusty doctrine that is irrelevant.  To say that Jesus’ death is tightly connected with his intercession echoes biblical truth, glorifies Christ and his saving power, and it gives the Christian firm comfort and assurance that Jesus who died for us will also intercede for us, that our faith will not fail (Lk. 22:32).

The above quotes are found in John Owen’s The Death of Death (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1999), chapter 7.

Shane Lems
Covenant Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Hammond, WZI

A Second Justification? (Owen)

In volume five of his Works, John Owen wrote extensively about justification by faith alone.  After giving some Bible-based definitions of faith and justification, Owen brought up the Roman Catholic doctrine of double justification.  Rome teaches that a person’s first justification is based on infused grace, faith, and Christ’s work.  Second justification, for Rome, is the effect of first justification, and it is based on good works and love done according to the infused habit of grace. For example, the Canons of the Council of Trent (VI.10) talk about being “further justified” by good works.

Here’s what Owen had to say about two justifications:

This distinction was coined unto no other end but to bring in confusion into the whole doctrine of the gospel. Justification through the free grace of God, by faith in the blood of Christ, is evacuated by it. Sanctification is turned into a justification, and corrupted by making the fruits of it meritorious. The whole nature of evangelical justification, consisting in the gratuitous pardon of sin and the imputation of righteousness, as the apostle expressly affirms, and the declaration of a believing sinner to be righteous thereon, as the word alone signifies, is utterly defeated by it.

Owen said there is a twofold justification in Scripture: One is justification by works – by perfect, perpetual, and personal obedience to God’s law – but this is impossible because all have sinned.  The other is justification by grace through faith in Christ (the topic of Owen’s book).  These two are distinct, like the law and the gospel are distinct.  Then he wrote,

And these ways of justification are contrary, proceeding on terms directly contradictory, and cannot be made consistent with or subservient one to the other. But… the confounding of them both, by mixing them together, is that which is aimed at in this distinction of a first and second justification. But whatever respects it may have, that justification which we have before God, in his sight through Jesus Christ, is but one, and at once full and complete; and this distinction [of two justifications] is a vain and fond invention.

In fact,

This distinction of two justifications, as used and improved by those of the Roman church, leaves us, indeed, no justification at all.

…Wherefore it is evident, that either the first justification overthrows the second, rendering it needless; or the second destroys the first, by taking away what essentially belongs unto it: we must therefore part with the one or the other, for consistent they are not.

Finally, echoing the Westminster Confession of Faith XI.5, Owen mentions that those whom God has justified can never fall from the state of justification:

“It is God that justifieth;” and, therefore, the continuation of our justification is his act also. And this, on his part, depends on the immutability of his counsel; the unchangeableness of the everlasting covenant, which is “ordered in all things, and sure;” the faithfulness of his promises; the efficacy of his grace; his complacency in the propitiation of Christ; with the power of his intercession, and the irrevocable grant of the Holy Ghost unto them that do believe.

There’s more to Owen’s discussion, for sure; these are some parts I highlighted.  It is an outstanding defense of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone – and not at all by any of our works.

John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 5 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.), chapter five.

Shane Lems
Covenant Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Hammond, WI

Forgiveness and the Infinite Largeness of God’s Heart

If a person seriously contemplates the hideousness of his sin in light of God’s law, and if he seriously contemplates the reality of forgiveness through Christ’s blood, it is a gospel truth that our minds cannot fully understand.  The person who has sinned against God in the worst ways imaginable can have his sins freely washed away by the precious blood of Christ (1 Pet. 1:19, 1 John 1:9, etc).  This is a staggering truth that’s hard for us to contemplate!  Here’s how John Owen explains this truth of grace:

It is an object for faith alone, which can rest in that which it cannot comprehend.  It is never safer than when it is, as it were, overwhelmed with infiniteness.  But set mere rational thoughts, or the imaginations of our minds, at work about such things, and they fall inconceivably short of them.  Were not forgiveness in God something beyond what men could imagine, no flesh could be saved.  This God himself expresses: ‘Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him, and to our God, and he will abundantly pardon.  For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord; for as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts’ (Is. 55:7-9).

They are, in as is plain in the context, thoughts of forgiveness and ways of pardon of which he speaks.  These our apprehensions come short of; we know little or nothing of the infinite largeness of his heart in the matter. They are, as is plain in the context, thoughts of forgiveness and ways of pardon whereof he speaks. These our apprehensions come short of; we know little or nothing of the infinite largeness of his heart in this matter. He that he speaks of is “an impiously wicked man,” and “a man of deceit and perverse wickedness;” he whose design and course is nothing but a lie, sin, and iniquity; such a one as we would have little or no hopes of — that we would scarce think it worth our while to deal withal about — a hopeless conversion; or can scarce find in our hearts to pray for him, but are ready to give him up as one profligate and desperate.

But let him turn to the Lord, and he shall obtain forgiveness. But how can this be?  Is it possible there should be mercy for such a one? Yes; for the Lord “will multiply to pardon” (Hebrew).  He hath forgiveness with him to outdo all the multiplied sins of any that turn unto him and seek for it. But this is very hard, very difficult for us to apprehend. This is not the way and manner of men. We deal not thus with profligate offenders against us. “True,” saith God; “but ‘your ways are not my ways.’ I do not act in this matter like unto you, nor as you are accustomed to do (John Owen, The Forgiveness of Sin: A Practical Exposition of Psalm 130, p 212-213).”

Indeed – where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more!

shane lems

Christian Duty

“Duty” is a word that has been used throughout history in the positive sense of the term.  From soldiers to civil servants to police officers to doctors to common laborers, many people have done their tasks because they believed it was their duty to do so.  This sense of duty is usually a good thing.

It is also good and proper for Christians to talk about duty.  Even though I haven’t come across this term in many recent Christian books, “duty” is a word Christians can and should use.  “Duty” is a word used in the best sense of the term by many Christians in the past.

For one example, John Owen wrote a book called “The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually Minded” (it’s found in volume 7 of his Works).  In this book, he (obviously!) talks a lot about Christian duty.

Here’s what Owen notes about the duty of prayer (emphasis mine):

A person indisposed and lifeless, engaging unto prayer in a way of obedience, upon conviction of duty, may, in and by the gift, have his affections excited and grace engaged unto its proper work (p. 296).

Concerning Christian duty and superstition, he wrote,

And we are not forgo our duty because other men have been mistaken in theirs, nor part with practical, fundamental principles of religion because they have been abused by superstition (p. 346).

And more:

Wherefore, we are to call in all constraining motives, such as the consideration of the love of Christ, 2 Cor. 5:14, to keep the mind steady unto its duty (p. 386).

As you value your souls, defer not the duty you are called unto one moment (p. 466).

The Reformed Creeds and Confessions also speak about Christian duty.  The Belgic Confession (Art. 36) says it is the “bounden duty” of Christians to “subject themselves to the magistrates.”  The Canons of Dort (III/IV.15) says it is the Christian’s “duty” to pray for unbelievers whom God has not [yet] called.  The Heidelberg Catechism notes that Christians have a “duty” to use their gifts to serve others and the Catechism says the church has a “duty” to excommunicate unrepentant sinners (Q/A 55, 82).

The Westminster Standards use the term “duty” over 20 times, mostly in terms of the Christian’s responsibility to obey God’s law: “What are the duties required in the 1st, 2nd, (etc.) commandment?” And the answers list scores of duties the Christians have with relation to obeying the Lord.  The Westminster Confession even talks about the “conscience of duty” that the Spirit works in a believer (XVIII.4).

And, of course, our ultimate authority (Scripture) talks about duty.  The kings and priests in the Old Testament had duties (1 Sam. 10:25, Num. 8:26).  And Ecclesiastes straightforwardly says, “Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man” (Ecc. 12:13).

There is more to this discussion about duty (e.g. God’s enabling grace, motives, ends, etc.), but we shouldn’t shy away from having a sense of duty as Christians.  I have a Christian duty to love/care for my wife and children, to faithfully serve as a pastor to God’s people here, to regularly attend worship services, to help and love my neighbors, to be a good citizen of my country, and, above all, I have a duty to follow the Lord Jesus.  It is not wrong to go to church out of a sense of duty, to pray out of a sense of duty, and to help your neighbor based on a sense of duty!  There is a right and proper way to speak and think about Christian duty.

The above quotes from Owen are found in The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 7 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.).

shane lems
hammond, wi