Patristics And Reformed Orthodoxy: Some Brief Notes and Proposals Carl Trueman

Carl Trueman is Academic Dean The renaissance of studies in Reformation John Owen and the Patristics and Professor of Historical Theology and Post-Reformation Protestant theology At the outset, we should note that the and Church History at Westminster over the last three decades has helped standard category of patristics was not Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, to put to death a number of caricatures, one that the Reformed Orthodox would Pennsylvania. Previously, he served as dogmatic and methodological, which had have recognized. The standard histori- Lecturer in Theology at the University of been perpetuated by the older traditions cal division with which we now operate Nottingham and as Editor of Themelios. of scholarship. Foremost among these (patristic, medieval, Reformation, and He has written numerous articles and was the idea that Reformed Orthodoxy post-Reformation/modern) are of later is the author or editor of a number of was increasingly driven by a speculative vintage. A writer such as Owen thought books, including The Wages of Spin: metaphysical principle, specifically that rather in terms of earlier and later writers, Critical Writings on Historical and of predestination, and that the older dog- and of earlier and later schoolmen. Nev- Contemporary Evangelicalism (Mentor, matics had no interest in biblical exegesis, ertheless, when we examine Reformed 2005) and John Owen: Reformed preferring instead to do theology via Orthodoxy in the light of our later tax- 1 Catholic Renaissance Man (Ashgate, proof-texting and crude dogmatism. onomy, it is very clear that what we refer 2007). While the overturning of these old mis- to as patristic authors played a significant conceptions is important, it should also be role in the theological construction of Ref- noted that a further aspect of the reassess- ormation and post-Reformation writers. ment of Protestant Orthodoxy has been an The empirical evidence for this is easy emphasis upon its essential catholicity: to find. The posthumous auction catalog Reformed Orthodoxy did not represent a of Owen’s library is replete with patristic break with the past, either in terms of con- texts, indicating the importance that these tent or even its own self-understanding; foundational theological writers had for rather, its exponents operated within him.3 Clearly his library contained all the a framework where the significance of standard patristic authors on key topics the theological, exegetical, and polemi- such as Christology, Trinitarianism, grace cal labors of previous generations were (Augustine, Athanasius, Cyril, Basil, etc.), assumed as dialogue partners in the as well as numerous other, perhaps more contemporary exposition of the Chris- obscure writers: Johannes Climacus, tian faith. Indeed, Reformed Orthodoxy Gregory Thaumaturgus, etc. The hold- was, in a very important sense, catholic ings are not resticted to Latin or Greek in terms of both sources and intention, fathers, either, with Syriac authors also as will be clear from this discussion of being represented. Of course, the mere John Owen, an outstanding, yet in many possession of a book does not indicate respects entirely typical, theologian of that Owen read it, but the constant refer- the Reformed Orthodox tradition.2 ences throughout his works to patristic authors, and his ease with classical and Ancient Near Eastern languages, would 52 suggest that we can take the library cata- further research. For example, when we log as representative of his reading and come to examine the actual substantive his scholarly interests. impact of patristic writing on Owen’s Indeed, that this is the case, and is theology, perhaps the most obvious area is indeed typical of Reformed Orthodoxy, that of the language of polemic. No matter is evidenced by the recommended read- what the theological controversy, Owen ing list for theological students that was is able to relate the battles of Reformed written by Thomas Barlow, Reformed Christianity in the seventeenth century theologian, conformist Bishop of Lincoln to parallel struggles in the early church. under the Restoration, and Owen’s Oxford Thus, while Roman Catholicism is typi- tutor and lifelong friend. Published post- cally characterized as Judaism (with its humously, Autoschediasmata, De Studio legalistic connotations), other errors are Theologiae:, or, Directions for the Choice of ascribed a more distinctively Christian Books in the Study of Theology (Oxford, 1699) heretical pedigree: Arminianism is (of was found among Barlow’s papers at his course) Pelagianism;4 while Socinianism, death, and clearly represents the kind of often a catch-all term for numerous radical basic reading with which he thought a groups, is a heady mix of Photinianism, student moving on to a Bachelor of Divin- Macedonianism, and Pelagianism.5 ity should be acquainted. In this work, Indeed, in Owen’s earliest published patristic writers feature both in the first work, A Display of Arminianism (1642), he section, dealing with the biblical text and sets the scene in the Epistle Dedicatory, canon, where they are seen as significant with a quotation from Augustine, a ref- for discussions of the extent of the canon; erence to holy war taken from Gregory but Barlow also lists contemporary works Nazianzus, and a clear rhetorical connec- on patristic history, as well as other manu- tion between the fifth century Pelagian als on how to read the Fathers. He does controversy and the differences between not bother so much with the listing of Calvin and Arminius (“One church primary texts—after all, this is simply an cannot wrap in her communion Austin introductory bibliography—but the skill [Augustine] and Pelagius, Calvin and of reading and using the Fathers is clearly Arminius”).6 Then, throughout the work considered by him to be a basic element there are constant reminders that what is of the theologian’s task. Owen would being witnessed is simply a recapitula- have been impacted by precisely the kind tion of the age-old Pelagian fascination of curricular emphases outlined by his with the idea of human free will and the tutor, Barlow, and thus patristic authors repudiation of divine sovereignty. would have formed a staple of his basic This approach is interesting and is theological diet. no doubt the result of various factors This had a wide impact on Reformed that underlie the self-understanding of Orthodoxy in general and Owen in par- Reformed Orthodox theologians. First, ticular. Indeed, his writings are full of we can see it as evidence of the desire of references to ancient Christian authors, so premodern theologians to avoid novelty. much so that little more can be offered in Orthodoxy is the norm; heresy is the inno- a short paper than some suggestive notes vation. Thus, by setting up contemporary which might prove fruitful as pointers to debates using the categories of archetypal 53 heresy, a twofold polemical point is being tion to the wider original context, but it made about both the opponents’ theology was inevitable that the taxonomy of the and the time-honored orthodoxy of the past could be transposed to the present Reformed. The Reformed Orthodox, as with little or no difficulty. This was not did the Reformers themselves, conducted a cyclical view of history because it was their polemics in significant measure heading towards eschatological consum- over the reception and interpretation of mation; but it was a view of history which historic Christian texts, particularly those minimized the contextual differences patristic authors of universal significance. between eras. That this is the case is demonstrated by Having said this, there is some evi- Owen’s concern even to establish quint- dence that the Reformed Orthodox had essentially Protestant doctrines on the developed a somewhat more nuanced basis of patristic precedent. For example, sense of the significance of their polemics when it comes to the scripture principle, than had been the case, say with Luther. Owen will cite extensively from Clement Luther saw the struggle over justifica- of Alexandria to establish his point.7 He tion as the equivalent of the Augustine- does much the same with justification by Pelagius controversy; but it is clear that faith, where he particularly uses patris- the issue at stake in the fifth century was tic citations to support his argument for the framework of salvation (the nature of mystical union as the basis for justification grace) more than the content of that sal- and imputation.8 vation (imputation of Christ’s righteous- Second, it indicates the limited sense ness). In Luther’s thinking the two seem of historical development with which to be different sides of the same coin; but the Reformed Orthodox operated. To say in actual fact they are conceptually sepa- that they had no conception of histori- rable. For Owen and his contemporaries, cal development would be incorrect, but however, it was clear that within Catholi- that development was generally seen as cism itself there was a struggle which theological, more specifically covenantal. paralleled that between Calvinists and Thus, in his discussion of the role and Arminians: that between Jansenists and place of liturgy in the church, Owen sees Jesuits; and Owen saw this, again, as the church history as a continual ebbing and result of residual Augustian influence in flowing of idolatry; and, under the impact the Roman Church: of the work of Cocceius, Reformed Ortho- The system of Doctrines concern- doxy developed an understanding of the ing the Grace of God, and the wills flow of history, from creation to consum- of men, which now goes under the Jansenisme mation, which was aware of the differ- name of , as it is in general agreeable unto the Scripture; so it ent epochs of covenantal history as they has firmed itself in the common unfolded. Nevertheless, the kind of his- profession of Christians, by the Writings of some excellent persons, torical consciousness that is prevalent in especially Augustin, and those who today’s post-Hegelian world where there followed him, unto such a general is a distinct sensitivity to development acceptation, as that the belief and profession of it could never be and change over time, was really alien to utterly rooted out from the minds of men like Owen. Thus, not only could past men in the Roman Church itself…. texts be plundered with minimal atten- Moreover, one whole Order of their Fryers, out of zeal for the Doctrine 54 of Thomas, (who was less averse the archetypal use of patristic sources as from the sentiments of the Antients keys to understanding the present, if not in this matter, than the most of that 10 litigious crew of Disputers, whom perennial truths of Christian experience. they call Schoolmen;) did retain Thus, Owen uses Augustine’s narrative as some of the most material Principles proof that human beings are born sinful, of this Doctrine, however not a little vitiated with various intermixtures and that courses in specific sins leads to a of their own. Not a full Age since…. significant changes in moral psychology after the lesser attempts of some which increasingly harden the individual more private persons, Jansenius, a Bishop in Flanders, undertakes the and lead to alterations in behavior as we explication and the vindication of grow and mature, both physically and the whole doctrine of the Effectual Grace of God, with the annexed mentally. Further, general moral dysfunc- Articles principally out of the works tion manifests itself in specific sins which 9 of Austin [Augustine]. manifest the basically divided nature of each individual as one who knows, by the It is clear from this kind of statement light of nature, the difference between that Owen sees both his own movement good and evil, and yet cannot help sin- within Protestantism and the attempts at ning. Most significant perhaps is the theological reform within Catholicism as way in which Owen sees Augustine as essentially recovery of Augustine’s think- paradigmatic for the immediate pre-con- ing on grace. version struggles, where the two sides of The archetypal nature of the early the individual—the one driving towards church for contemporary church life was sin, the other wanting to follow the way not restricted merely to polemics or the of God—are effectively engaged in mortal citation of authorities for establishing combat, powered by the Spirit working the antiquity of Protestant distinctives. through the word. The psychological Augustine is particularly significant urgency and conflict which pervades here. Of course, the role of Augustine in Augustine’s work clearly had a significant later anti-Pelagian thought, both Catholic impact upon Owen’s understanding of and Protestant is basic. Indeed, we have Christian experience. For example, see already noted how Owen understood the how he moves here from the specific case Reformed-Arminian struggle as a recapit- of Augustine to a general observation on ulation of the Augustine-Pelagius battle the pre-conversion state of an individual of the early church. Yet the influence of under conviction of sin: Augustine in this matter is not restricted simply to issues of more or less abstract And he confesseth that although, doctrinal significance. In his major work through the urgency of his convic- tions, he could not but pray that he on the Holy Spirit, Owen uses Augus- might be freed from the power of tine’s Confessions, the classic statement of sin, yet through the prevalency of Christian psychology, as the paradigm that power in him, he had a secret reserve and desire not to part with for understanding the nature of conver- that sin which he prayed against…. sion and the Spirit’s role in the same. These endeavours do arise unto great perplexities and distresses; Whether Augustine means the same by for after a while, the soul of a sin- conversion in the fourth century as Owen ner is torn and divided between the power of corruption and the terror does in the seventeenth might be a moot 11 of conviction. point; what is significant is, once again, 55 While Owen is nonetheless careful to cal discussion of subsistence/natures a qualify what he says by indicating that renewed urgency. God is sovereign and is not required to In this context, the patristic distinctions work conversion through a pre-conversion between Logos asarkos and Logos ensarkos, struggle of this kind, the overall thrust of and, crucially, between anhypostatic and the chapter is that Augustine’s experience enhypostatic human nature in the incarna- perhaps represents more of the norm than tion proved extremely fruitful. The latter 12 the exception. was developed by the sixth century theo- Nevertheless, it is true to say that logian, Leontius of Byzantium, as a way Owen’s use of Augustine represents a of explaining why the union of divinity reception of his Confessions rather than a and humanity in Christ did not lead to simple restatement of, or running com- the positing of two persons, or better, two mentary on, what the book actually says. subsistences, in Christ: Christ’s human There is little to nothing about the intel- nature was like ours in every way except lectual aspects of Augustine’s pilgrim- that, in itself, it had no subsistence outside age or the impact of crowd psychology of its union with the divine nature.14 In on the individual, both themes that are other words, its hypostatic status was the significant for Augustine. Rather, it is the result of the union with the second person individual experience, and then what one of the Trinity, and totally dependent upon might call the peculiar providences—so the divine. precious to the Puritan mind—which are Given the Reformed acceptance that so attractive and useful to Owen in his Chalcedon reflected sound biblical teach- seventeenth century context.13 ing, it was inevitable that the conceptual problems which the language of Chal- Post-Chalcedonian Christology and cedon created, even as it solved others, John Owen would also be of interest. Indeed, the One example of where the more rarified distinctions introduced by Leontius actu- climes of patristic theology provided the ally allowed the Reformed to provide Reformed such as Owen with extremely terminological clarification for their belief important paradigms and insights is that that Christ’s mediation was an act of the of Christology. Of course, the Reformed one person and not of either nature in par- did not question the basic formulation of ticular. A good example of the use of the the Chalcedonian Creed, but they were anhypostatic distinction is provided by aware both of the questions it generated Thysius’s disputation on the incarnation and left unanswered, and of the need to in the Synopsis Purioris Theologiae. While connect it to the specific requirements of the human nature never has any anhypo- the kinds of debate with the Lutherans static existence outside of the union with that marked the era of orthodoxy for both the Logos, nevertheless, its personhood traditions. Furthermore, the Protestant or subsistence is that of the Logos. This emphasis on Christ as mediator accord- avoids Nestorianism while yet maintain- ing to his person (and thus both natures) ing the integrity of the human nature.15 and not simply according to his human Owen uses this patristic insight, as nature, as was the normative position in adopted by the Reformed, to address the medieval Catholicism, gave Christologi- issue of the communication of attributes 56 within a Trinitarian context. This is in gave it personhood. The anhypostatic somewhat polemical contrast with both human nature of Christ had personhood the Lutherans and the Socinians. While enhypostatically. The argument has a Lutherans too held to the idea of the strange feel to it, given what one might call anhypostatic nature of Christ’s human- the “common sense” notion that human ity, they believed that communication of nature and personhood are inseparable; divine attributes to the human nature of but in fact that refinement makes perfect Christ took place directly between the sense given the new problems that the natures, and this was regarded as the Chalcedonian formula generates even as necessary result of the hypostatic union.16 it solves others. This was the christological underpin- Owen’s conceptual presuppositions ning of Luther’s insistence that God was here are impeccably patristic: the idea of manifest as gracious only in and through the anhypostatic nature of Christ, which the flesh of Jesus Christ, and that Christ Owen articulates very clearly in his chris- was present according to both natures in tological discussions elsewhere;19 and the the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. The desire to give an appropriate Trinitarian Socinians—for Owen the more immedi- account of all God’s external actions.20 ate threat—denied any consubstantial What we see, therefore, is the deployment divinity between God the Father and of patristic creedal theology and concepts Jesus Christ.17 Thus, what Owen has to do in the service of contemporary Protestant is tread a line between a Lutheran posi- debates. Faced with the challenges posed tion which faces potential difficulties in by Lutheranism and then by Socinian- accounting for the limitations of Christ, ism, Owen is able to offer an orthodox and that of the Socinians, which suffers Christology which answers both sets of from the opposite: accounting for Christ’s contemporary concerns while yet draw- uniqueness and apparent access to super- ing on, and remaining consistent with, natural knowledge and power. In contrast trajectories of Chalcedonian thought. to both of these positions, Owen describes Indeed, we might go further and the hypostatic union as follows: point beyond the polemical exigencies of Owen’s time to the constructive use The only singular immediate act of the person of the Son on the human of this distinction in emphasizing the nature was the assumption of it into historical movement within the life of subsistence with himself…. That the Christ himself as Owen conceives of it. only necessary consequent of this assumption of the human nature, Protestant, especially Reformed, Christol- or the incarnation of the Son of God, ogy, placed such dynamic development is the personal union of Christ, or and movement at the heart of its project, the inseparable subsistence of the assumed nature in the person of the moving away from the more abstract Son…. That all other actings of God and metaphysical concerns of the Middle in the person of the Son towards the human nature were voluntary, and Ages. This is reflected in the standard did not necessarily ensue on the categories of humiliation and exaltation 18 union mentioned. which both Luther and Reformed used to characterize the earthly ministry of In other words, the only direct act of Christ.21 That the attributes of deity are the Logos on the human nature was the communicated to the incarnate person via assumption of the latter into a union that 57 the work of the Spirit, and not by virtue creedal Protestantism. of the union in and of itself, allows Owen I would suggest that sound orthodox to give an account of Christ’s growth in theology of today, however, can find a knowledge which grounds the historical third way to do theology which both growth of Jesus in knowledge once again respects the insights of patristic theology in solid Christology which draws on while yet avoiding both the tendency to patristic formulations and trajectories. downplay later confessional develop- Thus, the historical insights of Reforma- ments and the desire to set the ancient tion Protestantism build directly upon, church against the modern. It is that and mesh seamlessly with, established represented by the approach of such as catholic theology.22 Owen in the seventeenth century. Owen had an acute sense of the fact that there Some Concluding Proposals are a limitations to patristic theology, yet Recent years have seen a resurgence of his Protestantism, far from making him interest in evangelical quarters regarding dismissive of patristic theology, requires patristic theology. In the hands of Thomas that he take patristic writers seriously. C. Oden, this has led to a resurgence of A commitment to scriptural perspicuity interest both in patristic biblical commen- means that he examines in detail the his- tary and devotion, placed, one might add, tory of exegesis relative to any passage of in the service of an evangelicalism with a scripture he addresses. A commitment to simple, ecumenical aesthetic which bears the church as God’s means of transmitting comparison, say, with the mere Christian- the gospel from age to age means that ity that has been such a part of the evan- he takes very seriously what the church gelical heritage.23 Oden’s work is a treasure has said about scripture and about God trove of theology; but the tendency of the throughout the ages. A realization that project overall to relativize that which there are a set of archetypal heresies, comes later, not least the great Protestant particularly focused on God, Christology, truths of justification by grace through and grace, means that the early church faith, and personal assurance of God’s provides him with much fuel for contem- favor, render the overall project, in my porary debate. A commitment to the fact opinion, less than Protestant. In the hands that the church’s theological traditions, of others—most notably the recent work of especially as expressed in her creeds, Craig Allert—the patristic testimony has provides both resources, parameters been placed in the service of contempo- and, at times, unavoidable conceptual rary critiques of established evangelical problems for doctrinal formulations in positions, such (in the case of Allert) as the present drives him again and again to that on the inspiration and authority of look at traditions of theological discussion scripture.24 Of the two movements, that from the early church onwards. Further, symbolized by the life and work of Oden a belief that theology is talk about God, is arguably constructive and helpful even and not just communal reflection upon to those, like myself, who wish to maintain the psychology of the church in particular a more elaborate doctrinal confession; the context, means that Owen regards it as latter is rather an iconoclastic phenom- having universal, referential significance; enon, less easy to assimilate to orthodox, and thus he sees those who have worked 58 in formulating doctrine over the years as naïvely inviting back into the camp those having a significance which transcends our ancestors threw out, at great cost to their own time and geographical locale. themselves, so many centuries ago. In this context, he also understands that Patristic theology is indeed the inheri- each solution to a doctrinal problem gen- tance that orthodox evangelicals have all erates new problems of its own, and thus but forgotten; thus we should be striving to understand why the church thinks as even now to recover its historic useful- she does, one needs to understand how ness, refusing to cede the ground either the church has come to think as she does to those friends who see patristics as a (e.g., the anhypostatic nature of Christ’s way of returning to a simpler Christian- humanity, a point likely to be incompre- ity or as a means of undermining central hensible to biblical theologians and/or truths of Protestantism. Our Protestant no-creed-but-the-Bible types, but surely forefathers built their theology upon the central to a sound understanding of incar- basis of careful patristic study; and indeed nation in the post-Chalcedonian era). Each our Protestantism demands that we con- of these makes interaction with patristic tinue to do so if we are not to squander authors necessary as Owen and others in our inheritance. his tradition work to ensure that the gos- pel is not reinvented anew every Sunday Endnotes but, rather, is faithfully communicated 1See Richard A. Muller, Post Reformation from generation to generation. Reformed Dogmatics (4 vols; Grand Rap- In short, biblical orthodoxy is, and ids: Baker, 2003); and Carl R. Trueman always has been, catholic in its ambitions and R. Scott Clark, Protestant Scholasti- and its sources. The sorry state of contem- cism: Essays in Reassessment (Carlisle: porary theological thinking, cut off from Paternoster, 1998). its roots by ideological commitments to 2See, for example, Carl R. Trueman, John radically imperialistic, monopolistic, Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man anti-historical, anti-systematic, anti- (London: Ashgate, 2007). metaphysical, anti-ecclesiastical forms 3Bibliotheca Oweniana (London, 1684). of biblical theology or no-creed-but-the- 4John Owen, Works (24 vols; London: Bible evangelicalism, has de-catholicized Johnstone and Hunter, 1850-55), 10:11. Protestantism, particularly conservative 5Ibid., 3:8. Cf. William Perkins, The Arte of Protestantism, in a way that would have Prophecying (London, 1607), 27-28, where been unthinkable in the seventeenth-cen- he advises the preacher to study ancient tury. For example, negatively, Arianism writers because “the Antitrinitaries have now is as deadly as it was in the fourth newly varnished that opinion of Arius century; we should learn the lessons from and Sabellius. The Anabaptists renew that time and apply them today, for time the doctrines or sects of the Essees, does not improve the value of heresy. Posi- Catharists, Enthusiasts, and Donatists. tively, the Trinity is as life-giving now as The Swenkfeldians revive the opinions it was in the fourth century, for time has of the Eutychians, Enthusiasts, etc. not diminished the being or the power of Menon followeth Ebion, and the Papists God. Let us learn from the past, not waste resemble the Pharisies, Encratites, time reinventing the wheel or, worse still, Tatians, Pelagians. The Libertines renew 59 the opinions of the Gnosticks ad (word, sacraments) but providences, which has done brilliant work in the Carpocratians. Servetus hath afflictions, miraculous deliverances, making ancient exegesis available revived the heresies of Samosate- etc. to the general Christian public; also, nus, Arrius, Eutyches, Marcion 14See Aloys Grillmeier, Jesus der his three volume Systematic Theol- and Apollinaris. Lastly the Schis- Christus im Glauben der Kirche 2.1 ogy (New York: HarperOne, 1992) matiques, that separate themselves (Freiburg: Hereder, 1989), 210. This draws deeply on patristic writings. from evangelical Churches, receive became a standard distinction in Most recently, his Ancient Christian the opinions, facts, and fashions of Lutheran Orthodoxy as well: see Devotional (Carol Stream: InterVar- Pupianus in Cyprian, of the Audi- the quotations from Hollazius, sity, 2007) is a superb introduction ans, and Donatists. Therefore in like Quenstedt, and Gerhard in Hein- to patristic Christian devotion, manner, wee must not so seeke for rich Schmid, The Doctrinal Theology practically applied to the Christian new repealings and confutations of the Evangelical Lutheran Church today. of these heresies as wee are for (trans. Charles A. Hay and Henry 24Craig Allert, A High View of Scrip- our use to fetch those ancient ones E. Jacobs; Minneapolis: Augsburg, ture? The Authority of the Bible and out of Councils and Fathers, and 1961), 300-01. the Formation of the New Testament to accompt them as approved and 15Synopsis Purioris Theologiae (ed. H. Canon (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007). firme.” Bavinck; Leiden, 1881), Disp. XXV. This is part of a series, Evangelical 6Owen, Works, 10:7. Interestingly xxiv. Ressourcement: Ancient Sources for the enough, on this same page, Owen 16See J. T. Mueller, Christian Dogmat- Church’s Future, designed to bring also speculates that the introduc- ics (St. Louis: Concordia, 1934), 272; patristic study to bear on contem- tion of Arminianism into England H. Schmid, Doctrinal Theology of the porary evangelical theology. was the result of a Spanish conspir- Evangelical Lutheran Church (Augs- acy between the Cardinal of Lor- burg: Minneapolis, 1961), 322. On raine and the German Lutherans, the anhypostasis, see Schmid, Doc- a story he apparently originating trinal Theology, 295-96, 300-01. with posthumous papers of Jerome 17On Socinianism, see H. J. McLachlan, Zanchy, and communicated at some Socinianism in Seventeenth-Century point to the English parliament. England (Oxford: OUP, 1951); Carl R. 7Ibid., 4:111-12. Trueman, The Claims of Truth: John 8Ibid., 5:176-77, citing Leo, Augustine, Owen’s Trinitarian Theology (Carlisle: Irenaeus, Origen, Cyprian, Athana- Paternoster, 1998). sius, and Eusebius. 18Owen, Works, 3:160-61. 9From Owen’s preface to Theophilus 19E.g., ibid., 1:225-26, 233; 12:210. Gale, The True Idea of Jansenisme 20Ibid., 3:162. (London, 1669), 18-20. 21On Lutheran notions of humiliation, 10Book 3, chapter 6, “The Manner see Mueller, Christian Dogmatics, 290 of Conversion Explained in the ff.; Schmid, Doctrinal Theology, 381 Instance of Augustine”: Owen, ff; for the Reformed, see Louis Berk- Works, 3:337-66. hof, Systematic Theology (Edinburgh: 11Ibid., 3:355. Banner of Truth, 1958), 331-32. 12Ibid., 3:360-61. 22Owen, Works, 3:169-71. 13See, for example, Ibid., 3:346-48, 23Oden is the General Editor of the where “outward means” are not series for InterVarsity Press, Ancient what one might usually expect Christian Commentary on Scripture, 60 ** Southern Baptist Journal of Theology - June 30, 2008 - KF - Disk: June 12

“ The Christian Church must respond to the challenge of the New Atheism with the full measure of Christian conviction.” R. Albert Mohler Jr.

=8$$.,-"&")((*"%).,"+$$&*#..

“ I know of no other introduction to this crucial debate that is as comprehensive and clear in such brief compass.” – D. A. Carson

“ Atheism Remix offers a masterful analysis of and timely response to the New Atheists. I applaud Albert Mohler for his clarity and conviction in helping us understand that biblical theism is the only true alternative to the New Atheism.” – David Dockery

Crossway | 800 323 3890 www.crossway.org

61