John Owen—A Caveat, part 2

John Owen—A Caveat, part 2

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.

John Owen—A Caveat, part 2

John Owen—A Caveat, part 1

Caveat comes from the Latin cavere.  The verb in Latin means to be on guardI 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.

 

Pin It on Pinterest