Westminster Conference 06 D

The most substantial session of the conference this year came at the beginning of the second day when (the incongruously youthful looking) Professor Garry Williams of Oak Hill introduced us to the Puritan doctrine of atonement. Once again the focus was chiefly on that Colossus John Owen as his views were presented in contrast chiefly to the Socinians and Hugo Grotius (1597-1645) [see pic] but also some of his fellow Puritans. Dr Williams drew our attention to seven features. Owen was biblical, catholic, systematic, covenantal, polemic, affective and contemporary.
Biblically he used thorough exegesis. An example would be his close sustained reading of Isaiah 53 to refute the Socinians and Grotius. He also used biblical history as when he speaks of the total involvement of all creation in the atonement (from God to the brute creation). Examples were also given of his use of biblical theology.
Though founded on the Bible Owen, like other Puritans, shows definite continuity with Augustine and the Catholic tradition and systematises his thought. Dismissing the common charge of Aristotelianism made against Owen Dr Williams next discussed the question of the necessity of the atonement, something on which Owen changed his mind, first denying and then accepting the view. This put him at variance with the eminent Rutherford and Twisse. The strength of the position, however, is that it accounts for Christ's suffering in a way the voluntarist cannot and secures the relationship between God's nature and his revelation.
Dr Williams went on to discuss the governmental theory of the atonement propounded by Grotius and Owen's response to it making some helpful distinctions and observations. Owen's emphasis on the mystical union of the believer with Christ was brought out helpfully. A great deal else was also said about how Owen opposed Grotius's concessions when arguing with the Socinians. It will be good to see this in print and to peruse it at leisure. It was good to be present, however, and to think through some of the issues regarding the atonement, issues most of us have rarely begun to think about. Perhaps the most interesting thought to arise, something that really came out in the fine discussion that followed, was the idea that we can say with Owen that sin must be punished of necessity whereas reward can only be something that God chooses to bestow. Not all were happy with the idea but it seems sound to me. This was one of the finest papers delivered to the conference in recent years. The subject is of enormous contemporary relevance but there was not time in the paper or in discussion to begin to look at this. Clearly Owen is the man who needs to be refuted, however, if certain modern writers are to make any impact on the evangelical doctrine.