I’ve mentioned appreciating Owen and I’ve also made disparaging comments about his book that J. I. Packer liked so much. I’ve also mentioned that to re-visit the issue I would have to make a detailed re-read, and that is not something I’d love to do right now… not least because I’d rather not read Owen with polemics in my heart.
So, here is a blogger who seems to have studied the issue more (or at least more recently) than me who has similar concerns. If it matters.
Hey Mark,
Thanks for the link.
Here is something provocative for you. My other problem with is that he converts the penal substitution into a pecuniary atonement in the way he mediates the atonement only through payment metaphors. These metaphors have the effect of converting one’s overall concept of the atonement into a simple pecuniary payment. There are some important implications for this. What is important is to keep the distinction between a pecuniary “atonement” and a penal atonement. Here is something from Packer which I thought was brilliant: Packer on the Nature of the Atonement: Penal or Pecuniary
It is also no secret that Owen stands between Reformed and Baptist theology. We recently got a new book in the RTS bookstore on “Baptist Covenant Theology.” Half of it is a reprint of Owen.
So Gill admits that some people repent temporarily, and God forgives them temporarily!