Andy Naselli

Thoughts on Theology

You are here: Home / Systematic Theology / John Owen’s Argument for Definite Atonement

John Owen’s Argument for Definite Atonement

by

I took a PhD seminar from Graham Cole in spring 2007 entitled “Historical Theology: The Atonement.” I later updated one of my papers for that course, and The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology published it in March in an issue on Puritanism:

“John Owen’s Argument for Definite Atonement in The Death of Death in the Death of Christ: A Brief Summary and Evaluation.” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 14:4 (2010): 60–82.

Here’s the outline:

1. A Summary of Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ

1.1. Books 1–2: Arguments for Definite Atonement

1.1.1. The Ends and Means of the Atonement: Teleological Distinctions

1.1.2. The Agents of the Atonement: The Trinity

1.1.3. The Means of the Atonement: Jesus’ Mediatorial Sacrificial Offering and Intercession

1.1.4. The Divine Design of the Atonement: Tying Up Teleological “Loose Ends”

1.1.5. The Accomplishment and Application of the Atonement: Distinct but Inseparable Facets

1.2. Book 3: Arguments against General Atonement

1.3. Book 4: Arguments against Objections to Definite Atonement

1.3.1. Exegetical Arguments against Objections to Definite Atonement

  • Ten Fundamental Principles for Understanding “General and Indefinite Expressions”
  • Exegesis of Three Groups of Disputed Texts
  • Rebuttal of Thomas More

1.3.2. Theological Arguments against Objections to Definite Atonement

2. An Evaluation of Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ

2.1. Weaknesses

2.1.1. Frustratingly Cumbersome Writing Style

2.1.2. Frustratingly Complex Argumentation

2.1.3. Overstated Elevation of Definite Atonement’s Importance

2.1.4. Excessively Uncharitable Rhetoric

2.1.5. Significantly Improvable Theological Method

2.2. Strengths

2.2.1. Sober and Passionate Preoccupation with Scripture

2.2.2. Appropriate and Commendable Use of Logic

2.2.3. Relatively Thorough and Cumulatively Convincing Argument

3. Application: Ten Practical Suggestions to Believers for Avoiding Unhealthy Schism over the Extent of the Atonement

Conclusion

Related: Shai Linne‘s “Mission Accomplished” repeats some of John Owen’s arguments:

The New Logos

Follow Me

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Andy,
    So timely. I just sat down to write some notes on limited atonement when I came across this link on your FB page. Thanks! Very helpful!!

  3. Thanks for this article. As for hymn text writers, do you have similar non-crusading advice as you offer for certain teaching postions, or do you advise them to write as they see fit and let their pieces find homes with a sympathetic audience.

    (No bearing on the Shai Linne piece, I was thinking of Zinzendorf and others.)

  4. David, that’s a wisdom issue that I haven’t given much thought to since I haven’t written many hymn texts.

    I’m not sure your two options are always mutually exclusive. Sometimes it’s a little different with song lyrics. For example, those who embrace definite atonement typically include phrases that the other positions accept. They are more inclined to repeat explicitly biblical language that Jesus died for his bride or saved his people from their sins than to say that Jesus died only for his bride or saved only his people from their sins. Other views can affirm the former.