John Owen’s Argument For Definite Atonement In "The Death Of Death In The Death Of Christ:"A Summary And Evaluation -- By: Andrew David Naselli

Journal: Southern Baptist Journal of Theology
Volume: SBJT 14:4 (Winter 2010)
Article: John Owen’s Argument For Definite Atonement In "The Death Of Death In The Death Of Christ:"A Summary And Evaluation
Author: Andrew David Naselli


John Owen’s Argument For Definite Atonement In The Death Of Death In The Death Of Christ:A Summary And Evaluation1

Andrew David Naselli

For whom did God the Father intend that Jesus die? What did his death actually accomplish or secure for those people? Did God have a single intent for all those for whom Jesus died? Could God fail to accomplish his intent? Three major soteriological systems answer these questions differently.

(1) Calvinism argues that God intended for Jesus to die effectually for the sins of only the elect.2 His death accomplished and secured the salvation of the elect alone, and God applies that accomplishment to the elect when they repent and believe at conversion. This view is usually called limited atonement, definite atonement, or particular redemption.

(2) Arminianism argues that God intended for Jesus to die for the sins of all humans without exception. His death was a universal provision that made it possible for anyone to be saved. The benefits of Jesus’ atonement are applied to anyone contingent on a person’s repentance and faith at conversion. This view is usually called unlimited atonement or general atonement.3

(3) Amyraldism (or Amyraldianism) argues that God’s intention is twofold: (1) according to God’s general will, he intended for Jesus to accomplish (in the sense of procure or obtain) the salvation of all humans without exception, and (2) according to God’s effectual will, he intended for Jesus to die effectually for the sins of only the elect. The former is a universal, infinite provision,

and the latter is a particular, definite, limited application, which the elect experience at conversion. This view, which maintains general atonement, is also called hypothetical universalism, post-redemptionism, ante-applicationism, and four-point Calvinism.4

Enter John Owen (1616-1683). Both J. I. Packer and John Piper have made astounding claims about John Owen and his famous book The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (henceforth, DDDC).5 In 1959, Banner of Truth reprinted DDDC with an introduction by J. I. Packer.6 Packer’s moving introduction, now a classic that has been reprinted separately, includes this remarkable paragraph in praise of DDDC:

It is safe to say that no comparable exposition of the wo...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()