So here is John Owen (1616-1683) denying the absolute necessity of Christ’s satisfaction to God’s holy law and justice (Owen later defended in his 1652 Dissertation on Divine Justice what he denied in his 1648 Death of Death).
“First, The foundation of this whole assertion seems to me to be false and erroneous,– namely, that God could not have mercy on mankind unless satisfaction were made by his Son. It is true, indeed, supposing the decree, purpose, and constitution of God that so it should be, that so he would manifest his glory, by the way of vindicative justice, it was impossible that it should otherwise be; for with the Lord there is ‘no variableness, neither shadow of turning,’ James i. 17; 1 Sam. xv. 29: but to assert positively, that absolutely and antecedently to his constitution he could not have done it, is to me an unwritten tradition, the Scripture affirming no such thing, neither can it be gathered from thence in any good consequence. If any one shall deny this, we will try what the Lord will enable us to say unto it, and in the meantime rest contented in that of Augustine: ‘Though other ways of saving us were not wanting to his infinite wisdom, yet certainly the way which he did proceed in was the most convenient, because we find he proceeded therein‘” (John Owen, The Death of Death, p. 93; underlining mine).
Whatever Owen’s opponent(s) were asserting, and whether or not Owen correctly inferred what the actual foundation was, he DENIED that the efficacious satisfaction made by the God-Man Mediator was the ONLY WAY for God to show mercy, to be a just God and a Savior.
“Declare and bring near; yea, let them consult together. Who has revealed this of old; [who] has told it from then? Is it not I, Jehovah? And there [is] no God other than Me; a just God and a Savior; [there is] none except Me” (Isaiah 45:21).
Owen had written:
“It is true, indeed, supposing the decree, purpose, and constitution of God that so it should be, that so he would manifest his glory, by the way of vindicative justice, it was impossible that it should otherwise be; for with the Lord there is ‘no variableness, neither shadow of turning,’ James i. 17; 1 Sam. xv. 29: but to assert positively, that absolutely and antecedently to his constitution he could not have done it, is to me an unwritten tradition, the Scripture affirming no such thing, neither can it be gathered from thence in any good consequence” (John Owen, Death of Death, p. 93; underlining mine).
So, supposing God’s decree and His eternal purpose to glorify Himself in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 3:11) “it was impossible that it should otherwise be” — that is, it was impossible that God should be other than what Isaiah 45:21 declares Him to be, which is “a just God and a Savior.”
But (according to Owen) to assert positively that “absolutely and antecedently to [His] constitution” God could NOT be a Savior without also being a just God “is to [Owen] an unwritten tradition, the Scripture affirming no such thing, neither can it be gathered from thence in any good consequence.” I quote Isaiah 45:21 again:
“Declare and bring near; yea, let them consult together. Who has revealed this of old; [who] has told it from then? Is it not I, Jehovah? And there [is] no God other than Me; a just God and a Savior; [there is] none except Me” (Isaiah 45:21).
And this portion from Owen:
“The foundation of this whole assertion seems to me to be false and erroneous,– namely, that God could not have mercy on mankind unless satisfaction were made by his Son” (Death of Death, p. 93; underlining mine).
One implication of Owen’s view (and all who deny the absolute necessity of satisfaction by Christ’s efficacious atonement/satisfaction) is that God is a just God and a Savior RELATIVE TO HIS DECREE, but NOT ABSOLUTELY a just God and a Savior RELATIVE TO HIS CONSTITUTION (since he implicitly affirms that God could save certain sinners apart from satisfaction made by Jesus Christ).
At the time he penned his Death of Death John Owen believed that God could have had mercy and saved certain members of mankind without His law and justice being satisfied by His Son. It is apparently not false, erroneous, or an “unwritten tradition” for a hypocritical Owen to assert this.
Owen concludes with an exhortation to rest contented in this quote from Augustine:
“‘Though other ways of saving us were not wanting to his infinite wisdom, yet certainly the way which he did proceed in was the most convenient, because we find he proceeded therein‘” (John Owen’s quotation of Augustine in his The Death of Death, p. 93; underlining mine).
It appears that Owen and Augustine rest content with the “saving” and the “mercy” part, but when it comes to God’s law and justice being satisfied and Jesus Christ’s redemptive cross-work being glorified, they discontentedly posit “other ways” of salvation. So, what might these “other ways of saving” be, you vain speculative heretics? Would these “other ways of saving” have been less convenient? Is it possible that salvation by the sinner’s own blood be among those other ways of salvation that “were not wanting to his infinite wisdom”?
Agrammatos 