Latest / Reformed Thinking / Is Punitory Justice Natural to God? The Debate with Twisse | John Owen

Transcript

Is Punitory Justice Natural to God? The Debate with Twisse | John Owen · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome to reformed thinking. Glad to be here.
0:02
So I want you to imagine holding a legal document that dictates
0:08
the literal physics of the universe.
0:11
OK, every single clause, like every verb tense in this
0:15
document, actually alters the reality you live in.
0:18
Right, it's the rule book. Yeah, yeah.
0:19
So if the document says the creator of the universe may
0:22
punish an infraction, you live in one kind of reality.
0:26
A reality where the rules are flexible.
0:28
Right where the judge has the option to just look the other
0:31
way, you know, where consequences are subject to a
0:34
daily decision. Right, it's up in the air.
0:36
But if the document says the creator must punish an
0:38
infraction, everything changes. Oh, entirely.
0:41
You are suddenly living in a universe governed by an
0:43
absolute, unbending moral physics.
0:46
There's no looking the other way.
0:47
None. So today we are doing a deep
0:49
dive into a text that argues for that second reality.
0:53
A very strict reality. We are opening up John Owens, a
0:57
dissertation on divine justice. We're looking at chapter 12
1:01
specifically. Which is such a dense section.
1:03
It really is. Our mission today is to
1:06
investigate a massive theological dispute about the
1:09
very nature of God. Right, getting to the core of
1:11
it. Yeah.
1:12
Did God choose to punish sin out of his free will?
1:16
Or is punishing sin an absolute, inescapable requirement of his
1:20
very existence? That is the big question.
1:22
OK, let's unpack this. Because that phrasing, that
1:25
difference between May and must, it changes everything about how
1:29
we view justice and salvation. It really does.
1:31
That distinction between may and must is the hinge upon which
1:36
entire theological systems turn. Wow, OK.
1:39
Yeah, we were looking at a moment in the 17th century where
1:42
John Owen is stepping up to respond to some of the most
1:45
highly respected theologians of his era.
1:47
The heavy hitters. The absolute heavy hitters.
1:49
These are men who firmly believed that Christ's
1:52
satisfaction, you know the payment made for sin on the
1:55
cross was entirely a product of God's free will.
1:58
Meaning what practically? Meaning they argued that God
2:01
could have saved humanity a different way.
2:03
Yeah, he could have demanded a different payment or perhaps
2:07
dismissed the penalty altogether without any blood being shed.
2:10
So just waved it off. Basically, yeah, but they said
2:14
he simply chose the cross as his preferred method.
2:18
OK, I see. Owen's thesis is a direct
2:21
systematic strike against that idea.
2:24
He argues that punitory sin avenging justice is not a
2:27
choice. Well.
2:28
Not a choice. No, it is an essential attribute
2:31
of God. God punishing sin is as
2:34
necessary as God being good or God being eternal.
2:37
Which places us right in the middle of a high stakes
2:40
intellectual conflict. Oh, absolutely.
2:42
And looking at the text, the very first thing that jumps off
2:45
the page is Owen's posture. Yeah, his attitude about the
2:48
whole thing. Right.
2:49
You might expect a man of Owen's caliber to come charging onto
2:52
the field, theological sword drawn, ready to dismantle his
2:55
opponents. You'd think so.
2:56
But instead we see massive hesitation.
2:59
Yeah, he's very reluctant. He expresses A genuine
3:01
reluctance to publicly disagree with these men.
3:03
He calls them numerous and respectable.
3:06
Which is quite a compliment. And he goes out of his way to
3:09
highlight how they have benefited the church.
3:11
His reluctance is palpable there.
3:13
Yeah, Owen specifically names the Chorifaeus of the
3:17
adversaries. Chorifaeus.
3:19
What is that? So in ancient Greek drama, the
3:22
Chorifius was the leader of the chorus, the one who spoke for
3:26
the group. Oh, OK.
3:27
By using that term, Owen is acknowledging this man as the
3:31
undisputed intellectual leader, the most prominent voice of the
3:34
opposing view. And who is this leader?
3:37
That man is the illustrious William Twist.
3:39
William. Twist.
3:40
Yes. For context, Twist was the
3:43
pelocutor of the Westminster Assembly.
3:44
Wait. Really.
3:45
Yeah. He was the man chosen to chair
3:47
the most significant theological gathering of the era.
3:50
That is a big deal. It is.
3:52
Disagreeing with William Twist in the middle of the 17th
3:54
century was a massive risk. I bet Owen views himself as
3:57
someone accustomed to the the popular mode of declaiming.
4:01
Meaning what? Preaching.
4:03
Yes, meaning he is used to preaching to congregations, not
4:06
standing on the front line as a scholastic debater facing down
4:09
the recognized champion of European theology.
4:12
I wanna translate that dynamic into a modern legal setting for
4:15
you listening. That's a good way to look at it.
4:17
Yeah, like if you are a rookie lawyer or even just a competent
4:22
trial lawyer may be very successful in your local
4:24
district, right? And you suddenly find yourself
4:27
filing a brief that directly contradicts a legendary Supreme
4:31
Court Justice. A justice who wrote the
4:33
textbooks you studied, Yes. You are going to hesitate.
4:37
You risk total professional embarrassment.
4:39
Career suicide, basically. So if Owen feels that level of
4:43
intimidation, and if he respects Twist so highly for his
4:46
contributions to the church, why stick his neck out?
4:48
That's the question. Why not just let this highly
4:51
academic debate slide and focus on his preaching?
4:54
Because truth outranks reputation in Owen's framework,
4:58
we see a tension in the text between human respect and divine
5:01
truth. Owen states that every least
5:04
particle of the divine truth is furnished from heaven with
5:07
authority. Every least particle.
5:08
Yes, he operates under the conviction that if a disciple of
5:12
Jesus Christ holds the truth, they must defend it.
5:14
No matter what. Even if the entire academic and
5:17
theological establishment rises up against them.
5:21
Modesty is a virtue, sure, but modesty must step aside when the
5:25
mechanics of salvation are on the line.
5:28
He has to speak up. He feels a religious scruple to
5:31
hold fast to the truth and enforce its claim.
5:35
He cannot allow institutional respect to override what he sees
5:39
as a critical biblical reality. He actually writes that if
5:42
modesty must be violated, all will agree it ought to be
5:45
violated in the cause of truth, right?
5:47
He knows he is stepping out of his lane.
5:49
He admits he isn't deserving of even a third or fourth place
5:53
from the van in this kind of scholastic battle.
5:55
And the van refers to the vanguard.
5:57
Right, the absolute frontline of a military formation taking the
6:01
heaviest fire. Yes, he sees his own abilities
6:03
way back in the ranks, but he he also observed something
6:06
terrifying. What's that?
6:07
People in his own country are blindly following the authority
6:11
of these famous theologians without actually weighing the
6:14
arguments. That blind reliance on human
6:16
authority is what forces his hand.
6:18
It pushes him over the edge. Yeah, he realizes that resting
6:22
on the reputation of an illustrious man like Twist is
6:25
leading the Church into an intellectual cul-de-sac.
6:28
A dead end. Exactly.
6:30
So he decides to Marshall the line for this controversy.
6:33
He steps up. He assumes that even though his
6:36
own attempt might be weak or lack the Polish of his seasoned
6:39
scholastic debater, the truth itself is robust enough that
6:42
impartial readers will see it triumph.
6:45
He's trusting the argument. Yes, he is relying on the weight
6:49
of the argument, not the resume of the author.
6:51
Which indicates the subject matter is not a minor semantic
6:54
squabble. Not at all.
6:56
If a man who prefers preaching is willing to risk his
6:58
reputation against the top scholars of his day, the
7:02
underlying issue must carry massive implications.
7:05
Huge implications this. Brings us to the core
7:07
theological dispute, the tension between God's will and God's
7:12
nature, right? What is surprising when you read
7:14
the primary sources, is that both sides in this dispute
7:17
actually agree on quite a bit of the fundamental theology.
7:20
They do. It is crucial to map out the
7:22
common ground before we analyze the division.
7:24
So what do they agree on? Both sides agree entirely on the
7:27
satisfaction of Jesus Christ as revealed in Scripture.
7:30
OK, so the cross, yes. They agree that Jesus died, paid
7:34
the penalty, and satisfied the wrath of God.
7:37
They also agree that God willed the salvation of sinners.
7:40
So the history isn't disputed. No.
7:43
Furthermore, they even agree that sin avenging justice is
7:46
natural to God. They are operating within the
7:49
same Orthodox framework regarding the historical events
7:52
of the crucifixion. Wait, if they agree that justice
7:55
is natural to God, and they agree the cross happened, where
7:58
is the actual fight? The exact point of division
8:02
rests on the word necessity. Necessity.
8:05
Yes, the opponents, led by Twist, argue the necessity of
8:09
Christ's satisfaction flowed purely from the most free will
8:12
of God. Meaning God chose to make it
8:15
necessary. Right.
8:16
In their scholastic system, God agreed to punish sin this way
8:20
because he simply willed it to be so, not because his
8:23
underlying nature demanded it. They want to protect God's
8:25
choices. They want to protect God's
8:27
absolute freedom of choice at all costs.
8:29
So what does this all mean? Let's ground this in a practical
8:32
analogy for you listening. OK, let's hear it.
8:35
Is God's justice like a human judge who sits on the bench,
8:39
looks at a guilty person, and has the authority to choose to
8:42
dismiss the fine out of kindness?
8:45
A judge with discretion. Yeah, a human judge has free
8:48
will. In that moment.
8:49
They can say you broke the law, but I'm going to waive the
8:51
penalty, right? Or is God's justice, like
8:55
gravity, like a fundamental law of reality that cannot simply be
8:58
turned off or ignored even by the one who created it?
9:01
The gravity analogy captures the essence of Owens's position
9:04
perfectly. Does it?
9:05
Yeah. If justice is an essential
9:07
nature of God, it operates with the inescapable reality of
9:11
physics. It just happens.
9:12
God cannot deny Himself. Therefore, if a sin occurs, it
9:16
must be punished. There is no alternative reality
9:19
where the sin simply evaporates. OK twisting.
9:22
The opponents are arguing for the human judge scenario.
9:25
They believe God could have saved humans without the cross
9:28
if he had chosen to do so. He just happened to pick the
9:31
cross. He just happened to choose the
9:32
cross as the mechanism. Owen fiercely opposes this,
9:35
arguing the necessity arises from the very nature of divine
9:38
justice. That shifts the entire reading
9:41
of the New Testament. It really does.
9:43
If Twist is right, the crucifixion was just one option
9:45
on a menu of possible ways God could have handled human
9:49
rebellion. Option A.
9:50
Option B. Right, he could have chosen
9:52
option B or option C, but if Owen is right, the cross was the
9:56
only mathematically and legally possible way to save humans
10:01
without God violating his own internal character.
10:04
Owen sets up a rigid, immovable framework.
10:07
OK, in his view, if God is going to save sinners, the events of
10:11
the New Testament had to happen specifically the way they did.
10:14
There was no other path. Right.
10:15
The blood had to be shed. The penalty had to be paid, Not
10:19
because God arbitrarily decided that was the rule for Tuesday,
10:22
but because God's own holiness and justice require
10:26
propitiation. His nature dictates the action.
10:29
To understand why this debate became so intense, and why a
10:32
brilliant man like Twist took the position he did, we have to
10:36
look at the historical catalyst. Yes, the background.
10:38
Theological debates don't happen in a vacuum.
10:41
The text mentions that the writings of a man named Arminius
10:43
set this whole controversy in motion.
10:46
Arminius is the spark here. Let's talk about that.
10:48
Well, Arminius wrote extensively concerning the efficacy of
10:51
Christ's death, and his views caused a massive disruption in
10:55
the theological landscape of the time.
10:56
What was his main point? Arminius contended that Christ's
10:59
satisfaction only accomplished one specific thing.
11:03
Which was? It made it so God might pardon
11:06
sinners, if he will to do so consistently with his honor.
11:10
Let's break down the mechanics of that argument.
11:12
Arminius is saying the cross didn't actually secure salvation
11:16
for anyone specific, it just opened the door.
11:20
It made humanity savable. Yes.
11:22
In this legal framework, the cross created a condition where
11:26
God is now allowed to forgive people without losing face, but
11:29
it doesn't guarantee he will forgive any individual person.
11:33
That is an accurate assessment of the Armenian system.
11:35
OK, The cross removes a legal barrier, but the actual
11:39
salvation of a person depends on a secondary condition.
11:43
Like what? Usually their own choice to
11:45
believe or their own faith. I see.
11:47
Twist looked at this opinion and was horrified.
11:49
Horrified. Yes, the text notes.
11:52
Twist considered this opinion absurd and highly derogatory to
11:56
divine grace and the merit of Christ.
11:58
He hated it. Twist wanted nothing to do with
12:01
the idea that the Son of God suffered that level of agony
12:04
simply to create a mere possibility of forgiveness.
12:07
Here's the logical puzzle. What's that?
12:09
If Twist hated Arminius View so intensely and thought it
12:13
insulted the cross, why is Owen arguing with Twist?
12:17
Aren't Twist and Owen on the exact same side of the
12:20
theological aisle here? They both want to defeat the
12:24
Armenian view. They share the same desired
12:25
outcome, yes. So why fight?
12:27
But they're using entirely different and incompatible
12:30
weapons to fight the battle. Oh, I get it.
12:32
Twist tried to fight Armenia's by elevating God's free will
12:36
above everything else. OK, this is a framework known as
12:39
volunteerism, where God's will is the supreme governing
12:43
attribute. So Twist leaned into the free
12:45
will aspect. He thought the best way way to
12:47
crush Arminius was to say God's free will is the only factor in
12:52
salvation. He saves who he wills, and he
12:55
punishes who he wills purely by his own sovereign choice,
12:59
unconstrained by anything. And I see the strategy.
13:01
Yeah, Twist thought. If he argued that God must
13:05
punish sin based on a rigid law, he would somehow be agreeing
13:08
with the Armenians, who also had rules about what God could and
13:11
couldn't do. Twist was terrified of putting
13:14
God in a box. Right.
13:15
He wanted a God who was absolutely free from any
13:18
necessity. As the exact dynamic driving
13:21
twist. It's fascinating.
13:23
We see complex theological factions forming in the text.
13:26
Arminius is the main champion of his view, but he has followers
13:30
who refine his arguments. The text mentions Core Venus,
13:34
whose opinion introduces slight variations OK and Episcopius,
13:38
who is described as the new Corepheus of the Armenian Cause.
13:41
Another Corepheus. Yeah, acting is a very noble
13:44
champion for their side. Then there is the Pelagian
13:47
tribe, who, the text notes, became reconciled with the
13:50
Sicinians. Wait, we need to unpack who the
13:52
Sicinians are? Definitely, because they
13:54
represent the extreme logical end of this debate.
13:57
The Sicinians denied the satisfaction of Christ entirely,
14:00
didn't they? They did.
14:02
Faustus Sicenus argued that a debt cannot be both paid and
14:07
forgiven. Oh, that's an interesting angle.
14:09
If I owe you money and someone else pays it, you haven't
14:13
forgiven my debt, you simply collected it from another
14:16
source. Right.
14:17
The debt was paid, not forgiven. Therefore, Siciness argued, if
14:21
God truly forgives, there can be no payment, no cross, no
14:25
satisfaction. Wow.
14:27
The text points out that the Sicinians wouldn't even use
14:30
Arminius's arguments. Why not?
14:32
Because they thought his weapon, the idea that Christ satisfied
14:35
God's honor to make forgiveness possible, would cut the throat
14:38
of their own desperate 'cause. They just threw out the whole
14:40
concept. They rejected the concept of
14:42
satisfaction altogether. So we are looking at a massive
14:45
intellectual battlefield. Huge 1.
14:47
You have the Armenians saying Christ made salvation a
14:50
possibility. You have the Sosinians saying
14:52
Christ didn't offer satisfaction at all, reducing the cross to a
14:56
moral example. You have twist trying to defend
14:59
Orthodox theology by shouting that everything is based on
15:02
God's absolute, unconstrained free will.
15:05
Exactly. And then Owen walks onto the
15:07
field, assesses the situation and says to twist you are using
15:11
the wrong weapon. Your defense is actually
15:14
compromising the foundation. And this leads to a brilliant
15:17
pivot by Owen. How so?
15:19
Twist had suggested that Owen's strict view of justice, the idea
15:23
that God must punish sin, actually contributed to the
15:27
support of Arminianism. Twist thought Owen was helping
15:29
the other side. Yeah, Twist thought that if you
15:32
lock God into a system of necessary justice, you were
15:35
playing right into the hands of the opponents.
15:37
And Owen completely flips this script.
15:40
He does. He takes Twist's accusation and
15:42
turns it upside down using the concept of definite atonement.
15:46
It's so clever. Here's where it gets really
15:48
interesting. Yeah.
15:49
Owen asks A rhetorical question in the text.
15:52
What's the question? If Christ affected that God
15:54
might forgive sins, does that mean Christ accomplished
15:57
nothing? Farther, and Owen answers his
15:59
own question. God forbid.
16:01
Let's examine the rigorous logic Owen deploys here.
16:04
Yeah, lay it out. Owen argues that if God by his
16:08
very nature cannot but punish sin, then he absolutely must
16:13
punish it. No exceptions.
16:14
There are no exceptions, no loopholes, no dismissed cases.
16:18
However, if Christ offered himself as an oblation, a
16:21
substitutionary sacrifice for specific sins, those specific
16:25
sins have now been punished in full, right?
16:28
He references Romans chapter 3, verses 23 through 26, which
16:32
outlines Christ acting as a propitiation to declare God's
16:35
righteousness. The legal mechanics here are
16:38
fascinating. They really are.
16:39
If justice is strict and unbending, and Christ steps in
16:43
and takes the full punishment for a specific set of sins,
16:46
those sins are legally dealt with.
16:48
The Ledger is completely balanced.
16:50
Therefore, God cannot punish those sins again.
16:52
You cannot. To do so would violate the
16:55
strict right and justice of God. It is the theological equivalent
16:59
of the legal concept of double jeopardy and modern
17:01
jurisprudence. That's a great comparison.
17:03
You cannot be tried, convicted and punished twice for the exact
17:07
same crime. It violates the very nature of
17:09
justice. That legal framing perfectly
17:12
captures Owen's argument. OK, if God's justice is an
17:15
essential part of His nature, it demands payment.
17:19
Once the payment is rendered in full by Christ, justice itself
17:22
demands the release of the debtor.
17:24
God is legally bound by his own righteous nature to forgive the
17:28
person whose sins were paid for on the cross.
17:30
It is no longer a matter of God looking down and deciding to be
17:34
kind, right. It is a matter of God's
17:36
unyielding justice requiring the release of the prisoner because
17:40
the sentence has been served. Owen writes that God is more
17:43
bound in strict right and injustice in respect of Jesus
17:47
Christ to confer grace and glory on all those for whom he died.
17:51
Which is a powerful statement. That completely destroys the
17:54
Armenian idea of a mere possibility of salvation.
17:58
It shatters the Armenian framework entirely.
18:00
Yeah, if the Armenians say the cross only made salvation
18:03
possible, Owen replies. That is strictly just.
18:06
God, who receives a full infinite payment, cannot offer a
18:10
mere possibility of release. It has to be guaranteed.
18:12
A full payment guarantees release and makes the cross an
18:15
absolute guaranteed transaction. So it's not just a potential
18:18
thing. No, the blood of Christ doesn't
18:20
just open the door or create a favorable condition.
18:24
It actually purchases specific people and secures their grace
18:28
and glory irrevocably. This demonstrates why Owen
18:31
believes his view is the ultimate weapon against
18:34
Arminianism, not a liability, right?
18:36
If you believe God's justice absolutely requires punishment,
18:40
and Jesus took that exact punishment, then salvation is a
18:43
done deal for those he represented.
18:46
It's mathematically certain, yeah.
18:48
Twis's free will argument looks flimsy and uncertain compared to
18:51
the absolute certain guarantee of Owens justice argument.
18:55
Owen is essentially telling Twis you don't need to protect God's
18:57
free will to defeat the Armenians.
18:59
You just need to correctly understand the mechanics of
19:02
God's justice. Exactly.
19:04
And as Owen presses this point further, he notices A glaring
19:07
flaw in Twis's own published writings.
19:11
Oh man, this brings us to a moment that feels like a mic
19:13
drop in the text. It really does.
19:15
Owen points out a fatal contradiction in Twis's logic.
19:18
What did he find? The text notes that Twist
19:20
actually maintains in his other writings that punitory sin
19:24
avenging justice is natural to God.
19:26
Yes, he does. Twist even voted in favor of the
19:29
specific idea when he was arguing against other
19:32
adversaries like Piscator and Libertus.
19:34
He's on the record. He eloquently defended the idea
19:37
that justice is an essential attribute of the divine nature.
19:41
We need to look closely at the definition of justice provided
19:45
in the text to understand the trap here.
19:47
OK, what is the definition? Justice is defined as a constant
19:51
will of punishing every sin according to the rule of his
19:54
right. A.
19:55
Constant will. Yes, Twis agrees with his
19:58
definition in print. He grants that an immutably
20:01
constant will of punishing every sin is natural to God.
20:05
Wait, if Twist grants that God has an immutably constant will
20:09
to punish every sin, how can Twist possibly argue, as he does
20:13
against Owen, that God could choose not to punish it?
20:16
It is a direct logical contradiction.
20:18
It makes no sense. You cannot possess an immutably
20:21
constant will to do something and simultaneously possess the
20:24
free will to choose not to do it.
20:25
Because it's supposed to be constant.
20:27
Immutably constant means it never changes, it never waivers,
20:30
it is always in effect. If it is constant, there is no
20:33
moment where the will decides to choose the opposite.
20:36
I have to pause here. Sure, if Twist is the undisputed
20:39
intellectual leader of his day, the man who chaired the
20:42
Westminster Assembly. The Chorifius.
20:45
Right. How does he miss a contradiction
20:47
this obvious? How does a genius make a mistake
20:50
like that in a published disputation?
20:53
Is it a blind spot? It happens frequently in complex
20:57
scholastic systems when sea logins try to synthesize
21:00
competing philosophical frameworks.
21:02
What framework was twis using? Twis was heavily influenced by
21:05
the SCOTUS tradition. Following Duns SCOTUS.
21:07
Yes, which placed massive weight on the absolute power of God,
21:11
the Potentia Absoluta. OK, absolute power.
21:14
Twis was so hyper focused on protecting God's absolute
21:17
freedom of choice because he thought that was the only way to
21:20
safeguard divine sovereignty against Arminius.
21:23
So he compartmentalized it. He created a firewall between
21:26
God's nature and God's actions. Ah.
21:28
I see. He wanted to say, yes, God's
21:31
nature is perfectly just, but his actions in history are
21:35
dictated purely by his free will, which is not bound by
21:38
necessity. But Owen refuses to let him
21:40
separate who God is from what God does.
21:43
You won't let him do it. Owen simply asked the rhetorical
21:45
question, who half opposed his will, right?
21:49
If it is God's constant will to punish, it will happen.
21:53
You cannot dissect God into parts where His free will
21:55
overrides His essential nature. God acts according to who he is.
21:59
His actions are the outward expression of his internal
22:02
essence. Owen's logic is relentless on
22:04
this point. If God is just, he must do
22:06
justice. He cannot deny himself.
22:08
It's airtight. Twist tried to have it both
22:10
ways, maintaining a just nature in theory, but a free choice
22:14
regarding punishment and practice.
22:16
And Owen exposed the seams in that argument.
22:19
He really did. He showed that Twist's system
22:21
required God to act against his own constant will.
22:24
Which is a theological impossibility exactly.
22:27
Identifying a flaw is one thing, but completely dismantling A
22:30
respected opponent's published work requires A systematic plan.
22:34
You need a road map. Right.
22:35
Owen doesn't just want to point out a contradiction and walk
22:38
away. He wants to dismantle Twist's
22:40
entire disputation, piece by piece.
22:43
And the text outlines Twist's disputation to show so
22:46
specifically what Owen is up against.
22:48
How is it structured? It is divided into two parts.
22:52
The first part contains 4 principal arguments attacking
22:54
the idea that God cannot, without a satisfaction, forgive
22:58
sin. OK.
22:59
The second part is where Twist answers arguments from two other
23:02
theologians, Piscator and Libertus, adding his own new
23:05
arguments along the way. Owen mentions another figure
23:08
here, the judicious Machovias. Who is Macovius and how does he
23:14
fit into this intellectual fight?
23:16
Johannes Macovius was a Polish theologian who taught in
23:19
Friesland. He was a predecessor in this
23:22
debate. So he was already fighting this
23:23
fight. Yes, a very sharp, sometimes
23:26
aggressive scholastic thinker who was present at the Synod of
23:29
Dort. Oh wow.
23:30
The text notes that Macovius had already given solid and
23:33
perspicuous meaning clear answers to Twist's 4 principal
23:37
arguments. So he already handled Twist's
23:39
main points. Macovius had already done a lot
23:42
of the heavy lifting in refuting twist voluntarist position.
23:46
Okay, so if Macovis already answered twists, why is Owen
23:49
writing a book about it? Good question.
23:51
Why not just hand people the writings of Macovius, point to
23:54
the clear answers, and save himself the trouble of going up
23:58
against the Corafius? Owen addresses that directly.
24:01
First, he feels the plan of his own work requires him to tackle
24:05
Twist personally, to build a complete system of divine
24:08
justice. OK, that makes.
24:10
Sense 2nd and more importantly, he notes that while Macovius was
24:12
solid, he may not have satisfied readers in every particular
24:16
detail. He left some gaps.
24:18
Macovius might have left a few logical loopholes, and in
24:21
scholastic theology a single loophole is disastrous.
24:25
Why is that? Because it allows factions like
24:27
the Sicilians to enter and dismantle the entire doctrine of
24:31
the atonement. Oh, they'll just exploit the
24:33
gap. Exactly.
24:34
Owen is obsessed with absolute airtight clarity.
24:38
He has to be. He tells the reader that he
24:39
wants to add things so that this controversy with twist will
24:43
occasion no trouble to anyone for the future.
24:45
He wants to settle it permanently.
24:47
He wants to drive a stake through the heart of the
24:50
argument so that no future student of theology ever has to
24:54
be confused by it again. That level of thoroughness
24:57
defines the reform scholastic method.
24:59
Leave no stone unturned. You don't just win the argument
25:03
on points, you anticipate every possible counter argument, every
25:07
potential misunderstanding, and you dismantle those as well,
25:11
right? Owen calls Twist a veteran
25:13
leader. So we're trained to the
25:15
scholastic field. Twist has pointed out the way
25:19
setting the terms and definitions of the debate.
25:21
And now Owen is going to follow him onto that battlefield.
25:23
And engage him on his own. Term Owen outlines his specific
25:26
weapons for this battle. He says he will try Twist's
25:29
arguments by the rule of Scripture and right reason.
25:33
Yes, that phrase is a perfect summary of the standard of truth
25:37
for this era of theology. It is the bedrock of the
25:39
approach. How does that work in practice?
25:42
You start with a biblical text that is the supreme authority,
25:46
as Owen noted earlier when he talked about every particle of
25:48
divine truth coming from heaven. Right, but it's not just quoting
25:51
verses. No, you don't stop with simply
25:53
quoting verses out of context. You apply right reason.
25:58
Which means rigorous logic. Rigorous logic, syllogisms, and
26:02
careful deductions to ensure your interpretation of the
26:05
scripture is consistent. It has to make sense.
26:08
It has to be coherent and it cannot contradict other known
26:11
truths about God's nature. So despite his initial modesty
26:15
and his stated reluctance, Owen is now marching onto the
26:19
battlefield. He's fully committed now.
26:21
He is fully prepared to demonstrate to all impartial
26:24
judges that Twist has failed to prove his point.
26:27
He is ready to systematically breakdown everyone of Twist's
26:30
arguments. Using the biblical text and
26:33
unassailable logic. He's confident that the truth
26:35
will triumph. Even if he feels outmatched on
26:37
paper. He knows his own abilities might
26:39
be lesser than Twist's in terms of formal debate experience or
26:42
institutional standing, right? But because he holds the truth
26:46
of God's essential justice, he believes the arguments will
26:48
stand on their own merit. We have covered a massive amount
26:52
of theological ground today. It's a lot to process.
26:55
Let's summarize the stakes. This dispute between Owen and
26:58
Twist was not an academic spat over minor definition.
27:02
No, it was central to everything.
27:03
It was a battle over whether the cross was an optional plan or
27:06
the absolute, logically necessary requirement of an
27:09
unfailingly just God. The implications stretch into
27:12
every corner of theology. Really.
27:14
How so? Well, if you side with twist,
27:17
God's will is supreme. But his justice is flexible.
27:22
But if you side with Owen, God's justice is an immovable rock,
27:26
and the cross was the only possible way for a holy God to
27:29
redeem a fallen humanity without compromising his own character.
27:33
It makes the events of Calvary an absolute necessity of cosmic
27:36
law. Yes, not an arbitrary choice.
27:38
I want to leave you with the final thought to Mull over one
27:41
that steps outside the theological boundaries of the
27:43
17th century and touches on how we view reality today.
27:47
OK, we live in a post enlightenment world where we
27:49
often view laws and rules as arbitrary constructs of
27:53
authority. Right, like a speed limit.
27:55
Yeah, a speed limit is just a number a City Council decided
27:58
on. It could easily be changed
27:59
tomorrow. Someone just made it up.
28:01
We project that view onto the universe, assuming that any
28:04
authority, even divine authority, is just exercising
28:07
arbitrary power. That's a very modern mindset.
28:10
But if Owen is right, if God's justice is an essential,
28:14
immovable attribute that absolutely requires payment for
28:17
every infraction. Then what?
28:20
Then reality itself is grounded in a moral physics that even God
28:24
will not alter. Wow.
28:26
If the universe operates on a fundamental law of justice that
28:29
is as real and unbending as the law of gravity, how does that
28:32
reframe the way you view the reliability of the reality you
28:35
live in? It changes everything.
28:37
If the rules aren't arbitrary, but are the reflection of an
28:40
eternal nature, the universe is a much more serious and perhaps
28:43
a much more secure place than we often imagine.
28:46
That is a lot to think. About it really is.
28:48
Thank you for joining this session.
28:50
Reformed thinking. Keep questioning the text and
28:53
keep seeking the truth.