M.TH. LONG DISSERTATION (LD6.1) - John Owen

John Owen’s Theological Context
transcribes is to highlight a special bond between Christ and the church. Clearly he
believed that, although they might not use Reformation language of imputation, the
Fathers upheld the implications of imputation grounded in union with Christ. 140 In
finding evidence for a Protestant view of justification in the Fathers, Owen stands in
contrast to contemporary scholars, who tend to regard the doctrine of imputation as a
Reformation novelty. 141 Nevertheless, whether or not Owen’s patristic exegesis was
accurate, what is obvious is his concern, common to Reformed Orthodox theologians, to
emphasize the catholicity of his teaching. This is also evident earlier in the treatise when
he quotes the sixteenth century Roman Catholic humanist Albertus Pighius, a leading
anti-Reformation apologist, as an advocate of the Protestant doctrine at this point. 142
Union with Christ lies on or just below the surface of much of the argument in
Justification by Faith. It also plays a significant role in various other works by Owen. 143 In
his discussion in this treatise, he notes that among his contemporaries there had been
much debate concerning personhood; however, he wishes to avoid arguments
concerning natural, legal, civil and political persons, for Christ and believers enjoy a
distinctive union: they are ‘one mystical person’. 144 Thus, although the union of Christ and
the church may in some senses resemble other types of union, such as natural or political,
discussion of these tends rather to obscure than to illuminate the nature of union with
Christ. Demonstrating his comfort with the analogical language of Scripture, 145 Owen
140 Kapic 2001: 145.
141 E.g., McGrath 1998: 189f.; cf. Kapic 2001: 144.
142 Owen 1850-55: V.38-40.
143 E.g., Owen 1850-55: I.355-74; III.463-67, 478, 513-27; IV.383-86; V.175-80, 196, 208-217; X.468-71;
XI.336-41; XIII.22-25; XXI.142-60.
144 Owen 1850-55: V.178, italics in original.
145 Cf. Owen 1850-55: V.12: ‘The Holy Ghost, in expressing the most eminent acts in our justification…is
pleased to make use of many metaphorical expressions. For any to use them now in the same way and to the
same purpose, is esteemed rude, undisciplinary, and even ridiculous; but on what grounds? He that shall
deny that there is more spiritual sense and experience conveyed by them into the hearts and minds of
believers (which is the life and soul of teaching things practical), than in the most accurate philosophical
expressions, is himself really ignorant of the whole truth in this matter. The propriety of such expressions
39