Chambers:

Is saying that faith is a gift of grace equivalent to a belief in the purchase of faith?

In Owen is view this is clearly the case. It is his contention at the beginning of the work that

the death and blood-shedding of Jesus Christ hath wrought, and doth effectually procure, for all those that are concerned in it, eternal redemption, consisting in grace here and glory hereafter,⁶⁴

and, as we saw, his first premise in relation to the purchase of faith states that

whatever is freely bestowed upon us, in and through Christ, that is all wholly the procurement and merit of the death of Christ.⁶⁵

Not only does he expand the category of faith in his discussion of means to include grace, as we have seen, but he insists that access to and experience of the covenant of grace is only by purchase.⁶⁶ Grace itself is merited for us by Christ.⁶⁷

Is this then just a quarreling over words, when we suggest that the acknowledgment that faith is a gift of grace is no support for the notion of the purchase of faith?⁶⁸ To this we must respond with three observations.

Firstly, the acceptance of the distinction within grace is itself moot, and it is not a feature of modern studies of grace, which tend to emphasise the underlying unity of its varied uses in the New Testament, especially in the Pauline use, which is the major and determinative New Testament use.⁶⁹ Even were it accepted it could be well argued that where grace is related to faith it is referring to God’s electing, sovereign grace [especially Eph. 2:8-9, Phil. 1:29, 2 Pet. 1:1, Acts 11:48, 14:23, 18:27], grace which cannot be thought of as ‘purchased‘, unless it is to be the cause of itself. Secondly, the words are different in that they set the participants in salvation in different relationships in respect to one another. In Owen’s understanding, purchase is from God, for the elect, by Christ. By contrast, the gift of faith is given by God, to the elect, through Christ. While Christ is the mediating agent in both, the initiating agent has changed from Christ to God, and thus the nature of the role of Christ in relation to people’s coming to faith also changes. Thus faith seen as the gift of God’s grace, a phraseology more consistent with the New Testament terminology, does not allow Owen to draw the causal links he desires and needs between the death of Christ and subjective faith, especially where the context suggests Paul is referring primarily to the Father, as in Eph. 2: 8-9 and Phil. 1: 28-9.⁷⁰ Thirdly, Owen’s making these terms equivalent in effect further highlights his dependence on the construct of the covenant of redemption. They can only be equivalent if one accepts his initial premise.

In fact, Owen’s talk of ‘purchase’ could well be seen as having a distorting effect on the biblical idea of faith, by reifying it, making it a thing or object or commodity, instead of a relational response. The phrase ‘purchase of faith’ is a category confusion, for trust, like love, can only be given by the subject, not bought, and arises in the subject. While, of course, it is bought for us, and not from us, even that suggests a passivity that is not a feature of the New Testament is portrayal. While the trusting attitude itself can be conceptualised as passive and receptive in relation to the reception of righteousness, we are not passive but active in that trusting, we are those who believe.⁷¹ It is this active responsibility that talk of the purchase of faith has the potential to undermine, and which the New Testament’s portrayal of faith in relation to the temporal realities of the preaching of the gospel and renewal by the Spirit do not. Nor does seeing faith as a gift of grace suggest passivity to the same extent, for the realisation of that gift again focuses on God is gracious work in history, on the preaching of Christ, whereas purchase emphasises determined causality. Gift continues to be the language of grace, but purchase moves into the language of rights.⁷²

We have spent some time examining the concept of the purchase or procurement of faith and associated ideas. Why the labour? To stress that the ‘purchase of faith,’ is not a self evident biblical idea that can be read off the text of scripture. Rather it is a theoretical causal construct dependent on the covenant of redemption. Owen could argue that he would in no way seek to undermine anything that the scripture has said about faith and its relation to the cross. It is just that he, with his talk of the purchase of faith by the cross, is revealing the relation of the cross to believing as seen from the perspective of eternity. But Owen would have to say more. It is revealing it as seen from eternity where the viewpoint of eternity is the relation of the Father and the Son in the one work of redemption as conceptualised in the covenant of redemption. The whole legitimacy of Owen’s insistence on the purchase of faith is dependent on the legitimacy of that covenant, and it is that covenant which we shall explore after we have examined its temporal foundation, Owen’s understanding of ‘redemption’ in scripture.

Read the rest of this entry »

Chambers:

The relation of faith to Christ’s death in Scripture.

From our brief survey we see that when faith is related to Christ’s death that death is predominantly presented as an object of faith, as trust is placed in Jesus the Christ who was crucified.⁵⁵ Where it is related causally to people’s coming to faith it is as the content of what is preached, not as a guarantor of a right purchased from the Father.⁵⁶ Faith comes through hearing and what is heard is the gospel of Christ crucified for sin, buried, and risen.⁵⁷ The gospel of the cross is also the focus of the Spirit’s illuminating work.⁵⁸ Coming to faith seems to occur in the creation of a compelling relational context in which, by the presentation of the object of faith, Christ clad in the promises of His gospel,⁵⁹ and the revealing of the certainty of the reality of that object by the Spirit, the illuminated hearer can do no other than freely turn to God in the genuinely and thoroughly human response of believing.⁶⁰ Thus the scriptural mode of relation contrasts with that of Owen whose talk of the purchase of faith stresses the eternal and efficient in the causation of faith. The Scriptures, however, are seen to stress the sufficiency of Christ’s death as presented in the gospel and its temporal application by the Spirit in relation to coming to faith.

Some of the references to faith contained in scripture create positive difficulties for the notion of purchase. These are those references which indicate the weakness or incompleteness of the faith of believers. If the faith which is purchased is a weakness of faith [Rom. 14: 1 who in context are specifically those for whom Christ died, 14: 15] or a lacking in faith [1 Thess. 3: 10] is that the result of a deficiency in acquisition or application? Is it because He dies for some or applies to some in ways different to others? This Owen cannot allow. He specifically rejects the idea that Christ can die for some in one way and for others in another, and he insists that what is obtained must be applied, for that is the purpose of its obtaining.⁶¹ Owen’s language has difficulty in accommodating itself to the reality of Christian faith as it is presented in the scriptures. Making a slightly different point, Clifford elaborates on the consequences of this variability of the subjective Making a slightly different point, Clifford elaborates on the consequences of this variability of the subjective experience of faith amongst Christians for Owen is position.

First he observes that

in Owen’s view the sufferings of Christ not only deal with the guilt of the believer’s pre-conversion unbelief, they are causally related to the removal of unbelief.⁶²

Then, noting that

doubting believers fail to participate fully in the subjective blessings Christ’s death purchased for them

he concludes that Owen’s

argument applies as much to supposed believers as it does to unbelievers, with interesting consequences. For if partial unbelief in a Christian hinders him from enjoying the fullness of those blessings Christ has died to purchase for him, this is no different in principle from saying that total unbelief in a non-Christian hinders him from ‘partaking of the fruit’ Christ’s death makes available for him too.⁶³

That is, if Christ can be said to have died for one who has a relative lack of the subjective benefits of that death, why can He not be said to have died for one whose lack of those benefits is greater, when the barrier in both to fullness of blessing is unbelief.

Chambers, N.A. “A Critical Examination of John Owen’s Argument for Limited Atonement in the Death of Death in the Death of Christ,” (Th.M. thesis, Reformed Theological Seminary, 1998), 221-224. [Some reformatting; old style title emphasis converted to italics; italics original; underlining for side-headers original; and inline underlining mine.]

Read the rest of this entry »

Humfrey:

To come up closer then to this person, and speak exactly, if I can. The death of Christ, as it is Redemptory, Propitiatory, or Satisfactory for sin, hath this fruit I speak of, Pardon. It is this is the direct immediate and proper fruit of it; I think I may say too, the only (such) fruit of it, for, Pardon for all sin of Omission and Commission, and consequently a disobligation from all punishment, of Loss and Suffering, is (passively taken) no less than a right to Impunity and Life, and this is held forth upon condition of Faith and Repentance to all the World: But the Condition it self (performed by some) is not the fruit of Christ’s death, as a Propitiation, though by way of Redundancy it comes by it. If you ask me what Redundancy? or How? I will tell you (though I can’t Peremptorily,) as thus. In all things whatsoever we pray for, suppose it to be for fair weather (as we have Collects for such Occasions), we ask it in Christ’s name, for his sake, or through his merits, when yet it would be a strange speech to say Christ dyed that we may have fair weather: And nevertheless there is some sense in which there is a Truth in this; for if Christ had not atoned God by his satisfaction for sin, there is no blessing could be obtained for, or by, any. Now, when there is some distinction must be made here, so that, mediately, indirectly, or some way, by way of Redundancy, such blessings, even as these, are the benefits of Christ’s Redemption to such and such particular persons, let that distinction be formed right, and in such a sense will the condition we speak of be a fruit hereof to the Elect, even by its redundant merit and value.

The purchase of Christ made, was a purchase for us, and for himself. His purchase for us was, that we should be pardoned upon Condition: He purchased for himself, a power to give us that condition, that our pardon may be complete. All power is committed to me in Heaven and Earth, says Christ, after he was risen. There is accordingly a Redemption by price (our Divines say), and by power. Pardon upon condition is the fruit of his Redemption by price: But the Condition is the Effect of his Redemption by power. When by his Death (I say) he had paid the price of a pardon for All upon Condition; by his Resurrection he receives power to confer the condition to whom he pleases, that is the Elect, which when they perform, they are justified, or have absolute right in it. And that may be a good resolution as to the sense of that Text, He was delivered for our sins, and raised again for our justification. To make the matter though more plain, we have that Text in Acts. Him hath God exalted to be a Prince and a Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. Repentance we see (and so faith) comes from this power, the power of Christ as a King, rather than as a Priest; and if as a Priest both, ’tis by virtue of his Intercession as he is at Gods right hand, rather than of his Oblation. Now Christ intercedes for nothing but according to Gods will; His will is his Decree, and it is from the decree, his decree of Election, that our faith and repentance does come. It is not from Christ’s purchase by price; it is not from the power of our free will; but it is from Election (which belongs to God not as Rector, but as Lord of his own gifts) working the same effectually in us. It is out of this Treasury Christ gives it; And not by virtue of a right to any from his death, but by the power of an endless life. Not as Testator, but as the Executor or Dispenser of his Fathers Election.

In fine, Christ by his death did merit, or procure this power, that he hath at Gods right hand: By this power he gives us Repentance and Faith. Faith and Repentance then is not the fruit of Christ’s death any otherwise than mediately or indirectly, as being derived from this power, which he obtained by it.

God (I again say) for the merit of Christ’s life and death exalts him to the power mentioned. Wherefore God hath highly exalted him. By this power, or as exalted, Christ gives his Spirit to work Faith and Repentance in whom he chooses, or hath chosen. By this work they are regenerated, and that Article in the Agreement (or Covenant as some call it) between Father and Son [When though shalt make his Soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed], is made good to him. In this way about then, and no other, does Faith and Repentance come to the Elect by his death, when the direct and immediate fruit of it is Universal. That is, Faith and Repentance (the Condition) is the fruit of Christ’s death as all other Blessings are, which are asked of God for Christ’s merits sake, or which he, as Prince and Savior, bestows on his people.

John Humfrey, Peace at Pinners-Hall Wish’d and Attempted in a Pacifick Paper Touching The Universality of Redemption, the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace, and our Freedom from the Law of Works (London, Printed and are to be Sold by Randal Taylor near Amen-Corner, 1692), 4–7. [Some reformatting; italics original; and underlining mine.]

Credit to Tony for the find.

Chambers:

Hebrews 12:2

aphorontes eis tes pisteos archegon kai teleioten Iesoun

Owen’s third clear scripture is a reference to “Jesus as the ‘author and finisher of our faith.’” It is not exactly clear how Owen sees this as supporting his case, as he does not enlarge upon the verse. By its placement here we must assume that Owen interprets “author” to mean the one who causally originates faith in believers, and who does so directly by his death on the cross. The correctness of this assumption receives support from Owen’s exegesis of this verse in his later commentary on Hebrews. Here we read that Jesus is proposed as the object of our attentive gaze, a ‘looking’ which Owen says “denotes an act of faith or trust, with hope and expectation,”³² “by his office or work.” Jesus can be said to be ‘author and finisher of our faith’ on account of “procurement and real efficiency.”

He by his obedience and death procured this grace for us. It is “given unto us on his account,” Phil. 1: 29. … And he works it in us, or bestows it on us, by his Spirit, in the beginning and all the increases of it from first to last… So he is the “author” or beginner of our faith, in the efficacious working of it in our hearts by his Spirit; and lithe finisher” of it in all its effects, in liberty, peace, and joy, and all the fruits of it in obedience; for “without him we can do nothing.”³³

Owen mentions three other senses in which Christ as ‘author and finisher of our faith’ may be considered as the object of our ‘looking,’ as the revelation of the object of our faith, as the example of the obedience of our faith, and as the guide, helper and director of our faith, but he concludes his discussion of the phrase by emphasizing that it has primary reference to Jesus as the efficient worker of our faith.

It is true, that in all these senses our faith from first to last is from Jesus Christ. But that (mentioned) in the first place is the proper meaning of the words; for they both of them express an efficiency, a real power and efficacy, with respect unto our faith. Nor is it faith objectively that the apostle treats of, the faith that is revealed, but that which is in the hearts of believers.³⁴

Thus for Owen the primary sense of archegos is that of efficacious worker of faith in our hearts. Is this correct?

The Context: The author is seeking to encourage his readers to persevere in faith even in the face of hardship, alluded to as a past reality (10:32-34) and a present possibility (12 :4-11). He has expressed his conviction that they are those who do not shrink back but have faith (10: 39) and presented them with the example of the Old Testament saints who persevered in faith. In the light of their example they too are to ‘run with patience the race that is set before’ them. As a further resource for this perseverance they must keep on looking to Jesus who faithfully persevered in doing the Father’s will and through the hardship thus experienced triumphed. They must consider Him that they might not grow weary. Jesus is thus being presented as ton tes pisteos archegon kai teleioten as an encouragement to faith, whose triumphant example of faith they must heed.

“Our faith” or “faith”? The personal possessive pronoun ‘our’ is absent from the Greek text. Many translations have introduced ‘our,’³⁵ but is this either necessary or desirable? Ellingworth, who supports this translation, writes

writes no stress can be laid on the use of the article as such, but pistis is usually anarthrous in Hebrews, and where the article is used (4:2, 13:7) it refers to the faith of specified groups.³⁶

Thus he finds here a reference to the faith of the author and his readers, and indirectly to that of Old Testament believers. Ellingworth is correct in his first two observations but his suggestion that the article “refers to the faith of specified groups” is an unhappy turn of phrase. Robertson, considering the article under the heading “As the equivalent of a possessive pronoun,” states “the article does not indeed mean possession. The nature of the case makes it plain that the word in question belongs to the person mentioned.”³⁷ It is the context of each individual reference which determines whether the specificity that the article gives is best translated by an English possessive pronoun or otherwise, and three occurrences of the article with pistis are insufficient to claim to establish a pattern of use, especially where alternate explanations for the use of the article in those contexts is available.³⁸ In Heb. 4: 2 whose faith is being spoken of is indicated by the participle ten pistin, and the article is more likely to be present as a generic article, emphasising that the word met with no faith at all. In Heb. 13: 7 English legitimately translates ten pistin as ‘their faith’ not because the article refers to a group of people but because the definiteness imparted to ‘faith’ makes it plain that it could be the faith of no others but ‘your leaders.’ It is this definiteness that also accounts for the use of the possessive in the English translation of 11:39, not mentioned by Ellingworth. How then to consider the use of the article in 12:2? While it may be a generic use, faith abstractly considered, it is better with Peterson to see an anaphoric sense, picking up on the presentation of ‘faith’ in the preceding chapter.³⁹ Understood in this way

the ‘faith’ of which the Apostle speaks is faith in its absolute type, of which he has traced the action under the Old Covenant.

Westcott continues, in the light of his whole understanding of the passage, to reject the idea that it is our subjective believing that is in view here:

The particular interpretations, by which it is referred to the faith of each individual Christian, as finding its beginning and final development in Christ; or to the substance of the Christian Creed; are foreign to the whole scope of the passage, which is to shew that in Jesus Christ Himself we have the perfect example – perfect in realisation and effect – of that faith which we are to imitate, trusting in Him.⁴⁰

The sense of archegon kai teleioten: archegos appears in the New Testament at Acts 3: 15, 5:31 and Hebrews 2:10 and 12:2. According to Bauer it is capable of a number of somewhat overlapping senses – leader, ruler, prince; one who begins; or originator, founder.⁴¹ Because of what Coenen calls the ” relatively unambiguous use” of archegos in the LXX for ‘leader’ this sense has been argued by a number of commentators for its use in Heb. 2: 10 and 12: 2. Thus Peterson, having found that the primary sense of archegos in 2:10 was that of leader or pathfinder, sees that emphasis also in 12: 2, as the intent of the passage concerns the comparison of Jesus’ experience with that of believers. “Christ is ‘forerunner’ and ‘example’ for his people in the life of faith.”⁴² However, Jesus is not just an example of a greater faith than the Old Testament saints. While judging

those commentators correct who see the primary reference here to the exercise of faith by Christ himself, . . . the preceding emphasis on the uniqueness of his personal achievement is not forgotten. Indeed, because Christ has given faith ‘a perfect basis by his high-priestly work,’ his faith, and what it achieved both for himself and for others, becomes a greater incentive for faith on our part than the faith of OT saints. His faith is thus ‘qualitatively’ and not just ‘quantitatively’ greater than theirs.⁴³

Even where the sense of ‘beginner’ is preferred because of its contrast with teleiotes the emphasis continues to be on the example of Jesus, the one who starts and completes the road we all must run, and in doing so makes our following possible.⁴⁴ Teleiotes, found only here in the New Testament and related to the significant perfection terminology of Hebrews, heightens this emphasis on Christ as our example, presenting him as the One in whom “faith has reached its perfection.”⁴⁵

Thus we see that in the eyes of many modern commentators neither context, syntax nor semantics support Owen’s contention that the primary reference of the phrase is to Christ as the efficacious worker of faith in our hearts, and their arguments seem convincing. Owen’s ‘purchase of faith’ still awaits a text….

Chambers, N.A. “A Critical Examination of John Owen’s Argument for Limited Atonement in the Death of Death in the Death of Christ,” (Th.M. thesis, Reformed Theological Seminary, 1998), 211-217. [Some reformatting; old style title emphasis converted to italics; italics original; underlining for side-headers original; and inline underlining mine.]

Read the rest of this entry »