We will continue on with John Owen. Last time we noted the fact that all theology is done with God or man at the center. All theology is done out of a supreme love for God or a supreme love for man. All theology is practiced by a person that is under the influence, that is, under the influence of love for God or enmity with God. Even very religious people can be at enmity with the true God and their theology actually be nothing more than an erecting of an idol. They do in fact love that idol because it is the reflection of themselves and is an idol of their own creation made after their chief love. I might be accused of going after Arminians at this point, but I am actually thinking of all that do this. This can be done under any theological heading. Any theology can be done with a heart that truly desires to control God and is an act of enmity against the true God. It is also the case that not all who go under the heading of Reformed are in fact Reformed in the historical sense of the word. This is also a result of the depravity of human nature and can be nothing more than a man looking for comfort under a theological heading rather than the true God. All must examine their hearts to know if they believe in and love the true God rather than their own image.
Owen refers to the Arminians this way: “Never did any men… more eagerly endeavour the erecting of this Babel than the Arminians, the modern blinded patrons of human self-sufficiency.” He then notes that their innovations tend to one of two ends: One, “To exempt themselves from God’s jurisdiction,–to free themselves from the supreme dominion of his all-ruling providence.” In this he says that they desire to “have an absolute independent power in all their actions, so that the vent of all things wherein they have any interest might have a considerable relation to nothing but chance, contingency, and their own wills.” He calls this a “sacrilegious attempt.”
Owen lists several attributes of God that the Arminians deny in order to seek self-sufficiency at the expense of God’s jurisdiction. He says they deny the eternity and unchangeableness of God’s decrees. If this is not denied then they “should be kept within the bounds from doing anything but what his counsel hath determined should be done.” They also question the foreknowledge of God because this “encroaches upon the large territory of their new goddess, contingency.” The third thing they have to deny is “the all-governing providence of this King nations, denying its energetical, effectual power, in turning hearts, ruling the thoughts, determining the wills, and disposing of the actions of men, by granting them nothing unto it but a general power and influence, to be limited and used according to the inclination and will of every particular agent.” The next thing they have to deny is “the irresistibility and uncontrollable power of God’s will, affirming that oftentimes he seriously willeth and intendeth what he cannot accomplish.” These are massive denials concerning the character and attributes of God.
Owen is sets out what must happen for a human being to be sufficient in his will. To set up the sufficiency of man in free-will, it is a logical consequence that the character of God must be viewed differently. The doctrine of free-will not limited to the study of man but has major and even severe repercussions on the character of God. Theology is much like a pond in that it matters not where the stone is thrown into the water as the ripples will spread over the whole pond. Owen shows us the consequences of the Arminian teaching of free-will, though many people deny that they really deny those things about God. Their views will take them there of necessity and this is seen in so many people actually denying these things in our day. The doctrine of God is affected by every doctrine and the doctrine of man has a major impact on how we view God. If we start with God, we end up with a particular view of man. If we start with man, we are forced to adjust our views of God to allow for man to have free-will.
“The second end at which this new doctrine of the Arminians aimeth is, to clear human nature from the heavy imputation of being sinful, corrupted, wise to do evil but unable to do good; and so to vindicate themselves a power and ability doing all that God which God can justly require to be done by them in the state wherein they are…that so the first and chiefest part in the work of their salvation may be ascribed to themselves.” Without going into all the points that Owen sets out, it is obvious that for man to have free-will he must not be dead in sins and trespasses and have some power to do good from within himself or his will would not be truly free. We also see something else and that is if man is not dead in sins and totally depraved, then this limits the power and extent of grace shown to him. For the will to be free and to do what Arminianism claims it can do, it must be able to act apart from the direct and efficacious power of grace. If not, it is not free. What we can see is that the endeavor to establish free-will and self-sufficiency has a massive effect on the doctrine of God. A sovereign God who never changes and has an eternal plan is not the same god as one that changes and cannot carry out his plan because he is frustrated by the will of human beings.
God Loves... Himself 
Leave a comment