I'm in a theology group/book club that reads and discusses one book a quarter. It's pretty unofficial and casual. We meet at Austin's classic restaurant Kerbey Ln and discuss what we've read until we stop making sense. We may drink a beer or take down some caffeine, but my personal goal is to eat at least a thousand chips with salsa. I love Kerbey's chips and salsa.
So the book we're reading currently is the most difficult thus far: The great Puritan theologian, John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. It is the pinnacle work against the theology of universal redemption, or hypothetical universal redemption (i.e. all are saved, and/or Christ died for all, respectively). They say ('they' being random people I've talked to plus J.I. Packer in the book's introduction) that no one has adequately responded to Owen's argument since it was published in 1684. That's pretty impressive, because that was published 327 years ago.
I have to admit that it's taken awhile to get used to Owen's writing. It's bizarrely awkward. You would think that one could chalk it up to the time period in which is was written, however, even Packer admits that Owen is not a typical writer, even for his time. He seems to write in long-winded streams of consciousness that are hard to follow.
But despite the difficulty, it's obvious that Owen has something to say, and that there is a tenacious logic driving his argument. In the section I'm reading currently he is dealing with the concepts of oblation and intercession. Oblation meaning the suffering of Christ on our behalf. Intercession being the substitutionary atonement for our sins. Owen's arugment is that these two distinct facets of the cross are necessarily and inextricably bound to one another, so that they cannot be fully understood and appreciated apart from one another within the framework of salvation theology. This is because God purposed in Christ to save those for whom he died. For Owen, Christ died for the elect and his paying for their sins was an efficacious work which would be fulfilled unconditionally. In other words, Why would Christ pay for the sins of someone who would then be damned to hell in order to pay for the sins already paid for by Christ? Owen would say that that hypothetical situation would make the cross worthless. Strong words. But also a strong argument.
There is much more to this concept, and much more to come in the book (I'm only 70 pages in), but I have to admit that one thing I am wondering about is whether or not it will be difficult to determine when Owen is simply being logical and when he is being biblical. By no means are those things mutually exclusive, however, because something is logical doesn't require it to be biblical, and vice versa. Interestingly, Calvinists tend to be relentlessly logical, and Owen is no exception. In fact Cavlinist arguments are normally sophisticated, intricate, and logically consistent. Moreover, the traditions stemming from Calvinism no doubt deminstrate a cerebral bent. This makes reading Owen's work critically, intimidating. We'll have to see how the book continues, and if there is anyone out there to respond to Owen's argument.
So the book we're reading currently is the most difficult thus far: The great Puritan theologian, John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. It is the pinnacle work against the theology of universal redemption, or hypothetical universal redemption (i.e. all are saved, and/or Christ died for all, respectively). They say ('they' being random people I've talked to plus J.I. Packer in the book's introduction) that no one has adequately responded to Owen's argument since it was published in 1684. That's pretty impressive, because that was published 327 years ago.
I have to admit that it's taken awhile to get used to Owen's writing. It's bizarrely awkward. You would think that one could chalk it up to the time period in which is was written, however, even Packer admits that Owen is not a typical writer, even for his time. He seems to write in long-winded streams of consciousness that are hard to follow.
But despite the difficulty, it's obvious that Owen has something to say, and that there is a tenacious logic driving his argument. In the section I'm reading currently he is dealing with the concepts of oblation and intercession. Oblation meaning the suffering of Christ on our behalf. Intercession being the substitutionary atonement for our sins. Owen's arugment is that these two distinct facets of the cross are necessarily and inextricably bound to one another, so that they cannot be fully understood and appreciated apart from one another within the framework of salvation theology. This is because God purposed in Christ to save those for whom he died. For Owen, Christ died for the elect and his paying for their sins was an efficacious work which would be fulfilled unconditionally. In other words, Why would Christ pay for the sins of someone who would then be damned to hell in order to pay for the sins already paid for by Christ? Owen would say that that hypothetical situation would make the cross worthless. Strong words. But also a strong argument.
There is much more to this concept, and much more to come in the book (I'm only 70 pages in), but I have to admit that one thing I am wondering about is whether or not it will be difficult to determine when Owen is simply being logical and when he is being biblical. By no means are those things mutually exclusive, however, because something is logical doesn't require it to be biblical, and vice versa. Interestingly, Calvinists tend to be relentlessly logical, and Owen is no exception. In fact Cavlinist arguments are normally sophisticated, intricate, and logically consistent. Moreover, the traditions stemming from Calvinism no doubt deminstrate a cerebral bent. This makes reading Owen's work critically, intimidating. We'll have to see how the book continues, and if there is anyone out there to respond to Owen's argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment