John Owen on Salvation
In his work The Death of Death John Owen lays out a classically Reformed and Puritan approach to soteriology, arguing for the hardcore Calvinist notion of limited atonement. While there are a whole mess of errors in Owen’s theological reasoning I actually affirm his logical syllogism that gets him to his conclusion. The problem is simply that he draws the wrong conclusion, not that he sees the alternatives wrongly. He argues that there are three options in how we view the work of Christ. Either Christ assumed all the sins of all people (thus universalism), all the sins of some people (thus limited atonement) or some of the sins of all people (thus either some sort of Pelagianism or despair).
The problem to my mind is not that Owen identifies the alternatives wrongly (though perhaps he leaves a more authentically Catholic view out – though what would we expect from a Puritan?), but rather that he simply choses the wrong one. If Christ did indeed really actualize salvation, not merely render it possible if combined with human effort then either he died for all and therefore all are or will be saved (universalism), or he only died for the elect, not the world. Clearly chosing either limited atonement or universalism puts one in tension with certain key Scriptures, the question is which position accords best with the whole sense of Scripture and the logic of grace as revealed in Christ. On this score, I think Owen and the tradition of limited atonement are unable to account in any viable way for their position. While universalism may have its tensions, they are infinitely preferable to the only other coherent alternative which effectually denies the very nature of biblical grace and turns God into little more than an omnipotent demon. – Thanks to Inhabitation Dei!
No trackbacks yet.