Trueman on Owen

Okay, I haven’t had time to get to a review of Trueman’s latest work on Owen. I offer only a few introductory thoughts. First, I personally feel like I’ve already read a lot of what Trueman is saying. Perhaps my sentiment comes from the fact that I’ve devoured both Rehnman’s work (Divine Discourse) and Trueman’s first work (Claims of Truth). There’s definitely some overlap. For example, Trinitarianism, Christology, and contextualization are all prominent themes in “John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man”. These themes are all present in “Claims of Truth”. Again, Trueman spends a lot of time discussing the covenant of redemption in relation to Owen’s doctrine of the atonement. But, unlike in “Claims of Truth”, he actually discusses, though only briefly, the covenants of grace and works. Unfortunately, Owen’s view on Sinai is not addressed, but, I suspect, that would fall outside of the scope of Trueman’s work.

One difference is Trueman’s access to EEBO. His work is different in this respect insofar as he places Owen within the context of the 17thC by making reference to other important works on, for example, the covenant (e.g. Patrick Gillespie’s work, The Ark of The Covenant). EEBO really has transformed Puritan studies and if you don’t have access, don’t bother doing Puritan studies.

I’m suspicious that Trueman has been reading this blog. He writes, in his section on covenant theology: “The covenant of redemption is the foundation of the economy of salvation and of the Incarnation and it is this, therefore, that should be the starting-point of any discussion of the person of Jesus Christ in Owen’s theology.”

Well, that, in a nutshell is my thesis, except I say this about Goodwin. Again, it’s always nice to see others, especially someone like Trueman, corroborating my thesis; but, I do think perhaps, my thesis is not altogether too novel.

Finally, I think it’s fair to say that Owen has been rescued from obscurity. There are plenty of monographs on him now and I have several friends who are working on PhD dissertations on Owen, all of which sound very interesting.

One advantage I have over previous Goodwin scholars is the renaissance in Owen studies. Scholars like Rehnman and Trueman have done a good job in contextualizing Owen, something Goodwin scholars have failed to do by and large, except for Lawrence’s historical work that is due to be published soon (Boydell, I am told).

More to come later, when I’ve analyzed the work in more depth – which means, of course, I am open to changing these tentative thoughts.