John Owen's Doctrine of Salvation Defective

Dr Alan C. Clifford makes a most daring statement when he asserts, and defends the view, that John Owen's soteriology was doctrinally defective.  Clifford argues that it is flawed in a number of respects:

"First, it is exegetically defective.  Quite apart from other textual distortions, the 'limited love' exegesis of John 3:16 in his Death of Death has no prototype in Calvin's theology.  Sadly, his embryonic hypercalvinism produced the semi-justifiable Wesleyan over-reaction of the next century. 

Second, it is theologically defective.  Since his approach is drawn more by ultra-orthodox dogma than scriptural data, universalistic texts are 'explained away' in the interests of deductive theological consistency.  

Third, it is philosophically defective.  In his discussion of the purpose and nature of the Atonement, Owen's entire approach was conditioned by the scholastic categories of medieval Aristotelianism." (ACC, Introduction to John Davenant's Dissertation on the Death of Christ, Quinta Press, 2006:xiv - xv).

Clifford affirms that it is undeniable that Owen's 'method' influenced the 'content' of his theology.  How important it is that we do theology properly.  Once we allow 'foreign' ideas to infiltrate our theological method, we are in deep trouble.  For example, when we accept, for example, the legitimacy of theological liberalism, the mother of unbiblical ecumenism, within the church, our theologising will be affected by that acceptance.   That means that it is dreadfully difficult for reformed evangelicals in theologically mixed denominations seriously to defend the reformed faith, because their credibility is open to question.