by Sam Waldron | Sep 17, 2018 | Eschatology
Owen’s way of reading 2 Peter 3 is so alien to most Christians in our day that there may be some doubt about what he is actually saying and implying. In this post I want to emphasize both the explicit and the implicit significance of the way Owen interprets 2 Peter 3. My hope is that the results of this survey will by themselves raise significant doubt about the propriety of Owen’s exegesis.
The Explicit Extent of Owen’s Argument
Owen takes Luke 21:34, 36 as a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem (page 138). Here is what he says speaking of the “dissolution” of “the Judaical church and state”:
“As it was foretold and threatened by Christ. How were believers cautioned to be ready for it with eminent holiness and watchfulness therein! So Luke xxi. 34, 36, “Take heed to yourselves; watch, therefore.” Why so? “Christ is coming,” verse 27. When? “Why in this generation,” verse 32. What to do? “Why, to dissolve heaven and earth,” verse 25; to “dissolve the Jewish church and state. Watch, therefore, give all diligence.” So also Matt. Xxiv. 42.”
Owen takes the words of 2 Peter 3:4 (“the promise of His Parousia”) as a reference to Jesus’ coming at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Thus, it is not just a coming, but the Parousia which is said to occur at the destruction of Jerusalem.
Owen takes Isaiah 65:17f. as exclusively a reference to the present gospel age (page 135). Remember his words: “this is a prophecy of gospel times only; and that the planting of these new heavens is nothing but the creation of gospel ordinances…” It would be one thing if Owen maintained that this was a promise anticipated or even partly fulfilled in the gospel age. His words, however, are clear. They are exclusively fulfilled in the gospel age— “nothing but the creation of gospel ordinances.”
I find this interpretation deeply troubling in itself for a number of reasons, but what I find even more troubling are its implications or consequences. I will point out those consequences in my next post.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | Sep 13, 2018 | Eschatology
In my last post I quoted Owen’s statement of his partial preterist view of 2 Peter 3. I believe this view to be seriously misguided in the exegesis of 2 Peter 3 and also burdened with serious, practical consequences. Let me hasten to add that these serious, practical consequences were probably not as visible nor even as serious in Owen’s day as they are in ours.
In defense of his partial preterist view of the prophecy of 2 Peter 3 Owen says that “I shall offer these two reasons, of many that might be insisted on from the text.” Here is the first of those two reasons.
“Because whatever is here mentioned was to have its peculiar influence on the men of that generation. He speaks of that wherein both the profane scoffers and those scoffed at were concerned, and that as Jews;–some of them believing, others opposing the faith. Now, there was no particular concernment of that generation in that sin, nor in that scoffing, as to the day of judgment in general; but there was a peculiar relief for the one and a peculiar dread of the other at hand, in the destruction of the Jewish nation; and, besides, an ample testimony, both to the one and the other, of the power and dominion of the Lord Jesus Christ;–which was the thing in question between them.” (Works, 9:134)
This is a remarkable assertion. It assumes an identification of the false teaching with which Peter was dealing which will need to be examined. It also asserts that “there was no particular concernment of that generation in that sin, nor in that scoffing, as to the day of judgment in general.” This assertion also needs to be questioned.
But here is Owen’s second reason for his view. It contains assertions that are, if anything, even more troubling.
“Peter tells them, that, after the destruction and judgment that he speaks of, verse 13, “We, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth,” etc. They had this expectation. But what is that promise? Where may we find it? Why, we have it in the very words and letter, Isa. Lxv. 17. Now, when shall this that God will create these “new heavens and new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness?” Saith Peter, “It shall be after the coming of the Lord, after that judgment and destruction of ungodly men, who obey not the gospel, that I foretell.” But now it is evident, from this place of Isaiah, with chap. Lxvi. 21, 22, that this is a prophecy of gospel times only; and that the planting of these new heavens is nothing but the creation of gospel ordinances, to endure for ever. The same thing is so expressed, Heb. Xii. 26-28.” (Works, 9:134, 135)
We must begin to explore the validity of these arguments and their truly massive implications in the next post.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | Sep 11, 2018 | Eschatology
My first post on this subject, I must confess, was a deliberate “teaser.” It was a deliberate attempt to attract interest in my subject and get you to “stay tuned” and come back next week to the same time and channel. Now I must ‘fess up and tell you without further ado what my concern is about Owen. It is found in Book 9 page 134 of his Works. My general area of concern is eschatological. My specific concern is the Preterist interpretation of 2 Peter 3 which Owen adopts. Some of you may not have Owen’s works. Of course, this may at some level and for some people undermine your very credibility as a Reformed Baptist. (Pardon my humor, please!) Yet for those of you who do not have his Works here is what Owen says:
“On this foundation I affirm, that the heavens and earth intended in this prophecy of Peter, the coming of the Lord, the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men, mentioned in the destruction of that heaven and earth, do all of them relate, not to the last and final judgment of the world, but to that utter desolation and destruction that was to be made of the Judaical church and state; …”
Owen goes on to offer two reasons (which he says are among many that could be offered) for this view. In the posts that follow I will provide a critique both of Owen’s reasoning and several (what I believe to be) conclusive arguments against the exegetical ground he occupies in his interpretation of this key, eschatological passage.
Before I close this present post, I simply want to identify what the position is that Owen is taking. He is quite obviously taking the partial preterist approach to New Testament prophecy and to 2 Peter 3. I gladly acknowledge that, since he speaks of the last and final judgment of the world, he is not defending the full preterist view. That is to say, his view is that some but not all of the prophecies of the New Testament are fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem and the events surrounding it. This is partial preterism, not its heretical evil twin, full or hyper-preterism.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | Sep 8, 2018 | Eschatology
Caveat comes from the Latin cavere. The verb in Latin means to be on guard. I am using its English descendant caveat to mean a warning or caution. Such is my esteem for John Owen that I prefer the softer idea of caution.
John Owen has attained (and not without warrant) a high status among Reformed Baptists in our day. This status derives from many things, I suppose. He is certainly a profound and faithful expositor of the Reformed faith. He is also a progenitor of the Reformed Baptist movement as a Congregationalist Puritan and one of the authors of that confession from which the mass of the 1689 is immediately drawn, the Savoy Declaration of Faith. The views articulated in the Savoy are only a kind of half step from the positions regarding baptism and the church found in the 1689. 1689 Federalism has publicized the idea that Owen’s views of covenant theology articulate a covenant theology amenable to and even foundational for Reformed Baptist views of covenant theology.
For all of these reasons, to cite Owen is almost to cite Scripture in Reformed books and blogs. Do we have a celebrity theologian of our own in John Owen? This is a question, I think, worth considering. Christian realism and spiritual sanity require, I think, that we admit that all men have spiritual and exegetical feet of clay. I think this is true of John Owen, and in the posts that follow I will point out a place at which I am convinced Owen does have feet of clay. It is also an exegetical place about which, in my opinion, we may no longer entertain his views without opening ourselves to serious error.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Rexford Semrad | Aug 8, 2017 | Book Reviews, Reformed Theology
part 1, part 2, part 3
Johnson, Jeffrey. He Died for Me: Limited Atonement & the Universal Gospel. Conway, AR: Free Grace Press, 2017. 201 pp.
Critical Evaluation (Continued)
Owen forgot about election?
Two of Johnson’s statements are particularly well suited to make the jaws of his readers drop to the floor: “However, there is something Owen did not consider. In fact, it is a crucial element that changes everything. Owen failed to factor in the one gift that God has given His people that was not procured by the death of Christ—election” (172), and then, “Though Owen was right when he said faith was procured by the death of Christ, he did not consider that the cross did not procure election, which is the reason that the saving benefits of the cross, including faith, are only efficaciously applied to the elect in time” (176). But once I got past the shock of someone accusing John Owen of failing to consider election in his arguments for why the atonement of Christ is only effectual for the elect, I gave the idea a great deal of thought. But I came to the opposite conclusion.
Rather than failing to consider the role of election that Johnson sees in making the atonement effectual to the elect, Owen could not fathom any sense in which there could be an atonement apart from election. Johnson may be comfortable with the idea that “In its relationship to Christ as Mediator the atonement is universal, but with reference to his work as his people’s Surety, his redemption is particular” (179, 180), but Owen never could be. Owen recognized first and foremost, that Christ’s sacrifice was the Mediator of the Covenant of Grace offering Himself up for those whom the Father had given Him. While His mediatorial sacrifice certainly had repercussions on the reprobate, there is no sense in which that sacrifice could be considered to be made “for them.”
For Johnson, (actual) universal sufficiency means that Christ died for all men. So in that sense he is correct when he states, “Owen could not embrace (actual) universal sufficiency because that which brings about the application of the atonement—saving faith—was effectually procured by the death of Christ” (117). But that was not Owen’s only argument against the idea of Christ dying for all men. It was not even his primary argument, as is evident: “it is denied that the blood of Christ was a sufficient price and ransom for all and every one, not because it was not sufficient, but because it was not a ransom.”[1] For Owen, all things associated with the death of Christ—ransom, satisfaction, reconciliation, redemption—could only be understood biblically if they were comprehended with direct reference to the elect. The Bible everywhere speaks of Christ’s death as substitution, satisfaction, reconciliation and redemption with regard to His chosen people, the church. But the Bible nowhere speaks of Christ as a sufficient but ineffectual Surety, Mediator or Savior for the non-elect. Scripture is equally silent regarding a sacrifice that is a sufficient but ineffectual ransom, a sufficient but ineffectual propitiation or a sufficient but ineffectual redemption. Johnson is correct when he asserts, “according to Owen, there cannot be two intentions for the death of Christ—one intention designed to save the elect and another intention designed to provide a way of salvation for the non-elect” (63, 64). Owen could not fathom a second intention designed to provide a way of salvation for the non-elect, because Scripture nowhere reveals such an idea.
Before moving on from the subject of John Owen, we must recognize that he did not altogether deny the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice to pay for the sins of all men. Johnson admits as much on page 119. But what is not found in Johnson’s book is the fact that Owen was actually in agreement that Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient and it does have implications for the indiscriminate publication of the gospel.
Now, this fulness and sufficiency of the merit of the death of Christ is a foundation unto two things:– First, The general publishing of the gospel unto “all nations,” with the right that it hath to be preached to “every creature,” Matt. xxviii. 19; Mark xvi. 15; because the way of salvation which it declares is wide enough for all to walk in. There is enough in the remedy it brings to light to heal all their diseases, to deliver them from all their evils. If there were a thousand worlds, the gospel of Christ might, upon this ground, be preached to them all, there being enough in Christ for the salvation of them all, if so be they will derive virtue from him by touching him in faith; the only way to draw refreshment from this fountain of salvation.[2]
And again,
Secondly, That the Scripture sets forth the death of Christ, to all whom the gospel is preached [unto], as an all-sufficient means for the bringing of sinners unto God, so as that whosoever believe it and come in unto him shall certainly be saved. Thirdly, What can be concluded hence, but that the death of Christ is of such infinite value as that it is able to save to the utmost every one to whom it is made known, if by true faith they obtain an interest therein and a right thereunto, we cannot perceive. This truth we have formerly confirmed by many testimonies of Scripture, and do conceive that this innate sufficiency of the death of Christ is the foundation of its promiscuous proposal to elect and reprobate.[3]
So, we find disagreement with Johnson, not in his insistence that Christ’s sacrifice must be sufficient for all if we are indiscriminately to preach the gospel to all men, but rather in his insistence that in order for Christ’s sacrifice to be sufficient for all men, it must have in some manner been offered for all men.
Part 5
[1] John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, in The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 10 (1850-1853, reprint, Carlisle: Banner of Truth Trust, 1967), 296.
[2] Owen, Works, vol. 10, 297.
[3] Ibid., 376.
Rexford Semrad has served as an administrator at Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary since 2015. He is married to his wife of 32 years, Marion, and has 8 children. He is a member of Grace Reformed Baptist Church of Owensboro, KY where he serves as a Deacon and a Gifted Brother. Among other things, Rex particularly enjoys theology, hot sauce and Church history.
