I don't really know. I am completely self taught when it comes to theology. I might be wrong but I perceive that since I don't believe the atonement is limited in any functional way I must by definition look at it slightly differently than Owen would, no matter how much I respect him. With a strict limited atonement it would be impossible and morally wrong for Jesus to suffer one speck more for one more sin than that which is required to satisfy God's justice for the elect. I understand that the idea of such a limited atonement works in perfect harmony with the determination of God to save those elected for salvation and because of that the charges people make up about the elect not needing to repent and being free of sin whether you come to Christ or not - and so on are impossible. Still. I don't see the atonement like that.
I believe Christ's death completely satisfied all claims God could have against us, for our actual sins committed before we are saved, for sins committed after we are saved, for collective guilt we have either federally or genetically in Adam, for any claims Satan can bring against us, and for any barrier that would cause God to be unjust and against His own nature should he forgive us. I believe God has a natural reaction against sin and sinners we would describe as wrath and since he is God and therefore just, it is right that that be the case. That does not mean he doesn't love us and loved us first, before we love him. The atonement was not to placate God in a pagan sort of way but it was in a true sense God folding back upon himself the just deserts of our sin and condition. Yet I don't see how anyone now or in the first century who had a complete access to scripture and full knowledge of what happened to Jesus could possibly doubt that did not involve God's wrath against sin. With respect to R.C. Sproul, I do not think God was personally angry with Jesus.
Because I don't believe in a limited atonement in a structural way, I don't have the strict accounting in mind. I have no problem with the idea that one drop of Christ's blood had enough worth to save the whole world and I have full knowledge that some Romanist theologians said the same thing. So did Spurgeon for that matter. The atonement in my view is limited in that because of God's perfect knowledge he of course had in mind those who would be saved by Christ's death. I just say that functionally, no one was shut out at the atonement. Because I think so highly of Owen I should point out that he did not believe that anyone was shut out functionally either and he explicitly stated that if you come to Christ he will indeed save you as he has promised. So I have no problem with Owen's argument except that I think I am not going to far in saying to someone "Christ died for you" even if they are not yet saved. Once again, in fairness to Owen, he said that no one need worry about whether they are elect because it was a direct promise that if you come to Christ he will save you. You don't need to be doing theology even before you are saved.
And again, I have no problem with all the other things men write about the atoning work of Christ and I believe they are usually true. I can even understand how someone in the first century or in some countries even today, where Christians have a short life expectancy, might emphasize the rescue, the victory over darkness, and the parallels with the deliverance of Israel over our personal sinfulness and thus not put a primary emphasis on PSA. But, if you look, there is always a point where God is dealing with our sin and indeed it is somehow put on Jesus for him to bear. To openly deny that aspect, with full knowledge, is a damnable heresy, like Owen said.
We all form our understanding through what we experience, through influences of others, from what we read, our worldviews, etc.
That is why I ask these questions. You may hold "x" belief. I may hold the same belief. But it very unlikely that our understanding would be exactly the same because we are different people.
Owen considered it a heresy to believe Genedis 3:15 as speaking of Christ and Satan. But most Christians, regardless of camps, believe it anyway.
Owen is still my 3rd favorite Calvinist when it comes to reading writings of other men. But teaching is "iron sharpening iron". The teacher often learns as much as the student. And who knows, Owen may have changed his mind if involved in this conversation. He cannot engage. Reading is fine but it is sekf-teaching (Owen is not teaching you, you are teaching yourself and understanding his words without him present to clarify or correct.
The words of the wise are like goads, and masters of these collections are like driven nails; they are given by one Shepherd. But beyond this, my son, be warned: the writing of many books is endless, and excessive study is wearying to the body.
The early Chriatians did not have a view that failed to emphasize the penal substitution theory. They held a view that contradicted that theory.
Calvinists decades ago contributed this to what they were experiencing. But they viewed Christ as suffering under the powers of evil for God's purposes and God delivering Him through death.
This is why they looked to the cross for their hope. They trusted God to treat them, as they suffered evil, as He did Christ on the cross. Although they suffer and die through the persecution of Satan this would be rewarded and God would raise them in Christ.
Now, I am sure that their situation influenced their understanding. It couldn't be otherwise. But that does not make their understanding wrong.
You say that Christ's death satisfied all claims against us. This is closer to answering my question. But it still leaves Christ Himself as a benign participant (a sacrifice offered by the Father, an object to hold our actions as the Father punishes them, etc).
Do you believe that Christ Himself did anything in terms of saving us, or is our salvation really wrought by the Father alone with Christ being a passive participant?
Don't get me wrong. I believe the Father sent His Son as a sacrifice. But I view the cross as a work of Christ according to the plan of the Father, so I view Christ as our Savior and He the reconciliation of mankind and God (literal forgiveness of sins rather than sins punished).
I will summarize how I understand what you have posted to make sure I'm tracking in a bit (I need to re-read it to make sure I didnt miss anything). Just let me know if I misunderstood what you are saying.
