This post is an excerpt from the book review of Death of Death in the Death of Christ.
P1: the strict connection between Christ’s offering and His intercession gives assurance to those who believe Christ offered for them
P2: Arminians think Christ may offer for those whom He does not intercede.
C1: Under Arminian thinking, those who believe Christ offered Himself to the Father for them have no assurance.
Scripture supporting P1:
“Who is he that condemneth? “It is Christ that died,” (Romans 8:34)
The conclusion does not follow, because a strict connection between Christ’s offering and His intercession is not the only way to explain that fact that those who believe that Christ died for them have assurance. They have assurance because: Christ intercedes for those who believe. So it’s true that everyone who believes Christ offered for him has assurance, but it’s not true because of P1.
C1 should read:
C1*: Under Arminian thinking, those who believe Christ offered Himself to the Father for them have no assurance, based on “a strict connection between Christ‘s offering and His intercession”.
Which would be true, but so what? Arminians have assurance for other reasons. As Romans 8 continues: yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
This was Owen’s 6th and final argument supporting his critical point in Chapter 7. Chapter 7 set out to prove:
“Containing reasons to prove the oblation and intercession of Christ to be one entire means respecting the accomplishment of the same proposed end, and to have the same personal object.”
These arguments failed to prove Owen’s point. As I demonstrated in the intro to this series on Owen, this point was critical to Owen’s whole argument. Since Owen misunderstands offering and intercession, his whole understanding of the atonement is off base.