The Verdict of Scripture
This chapter examines scriptural evidence with a view to reaching an authoritative verdict regarding atonement. By comparing the textual comments of John Owen, John Wesley, and Richard Baxter, it attempts to evaluate their respective claims truly to represent the teaching of the Bible. It argues that Owen cannot justify his particularist thesis exegetically. Without minimizing Wesley's deficiencies with regard to the ultimate success of the gospel, his exegesis of the disputed texts has more affinity with Reformation Calvinism than Owen's does. Only by imposing a preconceived theological strait-jacket on the textual data, and flying in the face of the criterion of perspicuity, can Owen's case appear credible. Without pretending that Baxter's overall presentation is flawless, his fundamental view of the atonement — a via media between Owen's particularism and Wesley's universalism — must surely commend itself as a valid biblical alternative. Notwithstanding minor exegetical variations, Baxter's position may now be seen as a basic reaffirmation of Calvin's soteriology.
Keywords: Calvinist—Arminian controversy, Calvinism, Arminanism, atonement, John Calvin, John Owen, John Wesley, Richard Baxter, Protestants
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .