Owen Thomas - The Atonement Controversy

The following are my initial reflection on the introduction of John Aaron's translation of Owen Thomas' book, The Atonement Controversy in Welsh Theological Literature and Debate, 1707-1841.  The book is published by the Banner of Truth Trust.

I am amazed at the hatchet job that John Aaron has done on Owen Thomas.  I would have thought that if one is to translate an author's book from a foreign language to English, he would at least have some sympathy for the author, but Aaron seems to have little or no sympathy of Owen Thomas's position.  It is a terrible thing, according to John Aaron, to be grouped together with men of God like Jonathan Edwards, Joseph Bellamy and Samuel Hopkins (xvii).

If Owen Thomas's sympathies have to be guarded against, what exactly are John Aaron's theological sympathies?  Are they not to be guarded against similarly?  They do not appear to be on the same theological wavelength as Owen Thomas and John Jones, Talsarn.  He criticises Owen Thomas for allowing his views to colour his history writing (xxv), but remains blissfully ignorant that his writing is doing precisely the same thing.

Conceding that Owen Thomas's heart is with John Jones (xxvi), this linkage makes Owen Thomas a partial observer and therefore not to be followed in all points.  In fact, we must also be careful not to follow men in all points, unless first those points and teachings are drawn from Scripture.  After lifting Owen Thomas up in the earlier pages, he then proceeds to tear him down and criticise him for not being "as discerning a theologian as some of the previous generation,"  (xxvii).  The base line against which he is measuring Owen Thomas is a man like John Elias and his high orthodox fellow-travellers. 

John Aaron simply does not like what he calls 'modified Calvinism' and saw this as the thin edge of the wedge which would have inevitable consequences.  If Calvinism had to be 'modified,' it is obviously because it had departed from the teaching of Calvin himself.  In this case, modification is a duty.  John Aaron is of the opinion that Calvinism in 18th and 19th century Wales was true to the reformer in its soteriology.  Well, this is easily disproved as even a casual look at Calvin's own writing and published sermons will indicate.  This 'modification' (and it's a word I don't like) had the effect of changing "the general theological landscape" making it "very different," (xxvii, xxviii).  This 'difference' would make Gospel understanding more biblical.

John Elias is the preferred Welsh preacher for John Aaron (xxviii).  This explains why his criticisms of Owen Thomas are so trenchant.  While Owen Thomas had clear sympathies with Jonathan Edwards & Co (USA), John Aaron does not seem to favour them one bit.  Yet fellow Welshman, DMLJ, held Jonathan Edwards in the highest regard.  Opining that Elias's writings were 'very perceptive' in contrast to those of Owen Thomas which are described as 'bland', John Aaron reveals his theological prejudice for all to see. 

He dismisses OT's insights as 'wishful thinking,' (xxx) - a rather poor and unscholarly way of dealing with those with whom one disagrees. Owen Thomas is criticised for presenting no validating evidence for his 'opinions,' (xxxi).  Owen Thomas's alleged lack of objectivity is criticised, but where does that very criticism leave John Aaron? His objectivity leaves a lot to be desired.  Accepting that not one of us can be completely objective in anything we say or write, credit can be given to those who are prepared to follow the textual evidence wherever it leads.  He is unhappy about the distinction that Owen Thomas draws between particular redemption and Dordt.  On this he (John Aaron) is correct; he has seen what few others perhaps have admitted to seeing.

Aaron's accusation that Owen Thomas & Co were proceeding in a liberal and Arminian direction (xxxii) is pathetic.  If this is true, so also did Calvin and DMLJ, not to forget Jonathan Edwards, Bellamy and Hopkins, Ryle and McCheyne, etc.  His quotation from R W Dale is surely taken out of context given Dale's very frequent use of universalistic statement regarding the atonement.  He quotes from W T Owen's biography of Edward Williams, who quotes Dale as saying that "Moderate Calvinism is Calvinism in decay," (xxxii).  In his book on the atonement Dale confirmed authentic Calvinism many times.  So what is the truth about this?  Was Dale playing to the gallery?  Or was he in fact addressing a modification of Calvinism that then existed?  Dale created his own modification of Calvinism when he denied eternal punishment, election and predestination, etc.  Dale's orthodoxy in places is questionable, therefore care must be taken to ensure that his statemens are properly contextualised. 

This all raises the question, What is authentic Calvinism?  John Aaron has not got it.  The Calvinism of Owen Thomas was not an exercise in selling one's theological birthright (xxxiii) at all.  It was a recovery of what Calvin actually taught and preached.  It was not the "wooden horse to Welsh Calvinism" that "carried Liberalism within the gates," (xxxiv).  Authentic Calvinism is not international Calvinism with an Arminian or  Semi-Pelagian interpretation (xxxvii), but a return to the authentic teaching of John Calvin.

All in all, not a helpful introduction to a mighty man of God or to his biblical theology/soteriology.  It is an introduction that must have "HANDLED WITH CARE" written all over it.  This is sad, but any attempt to be scholarly and objective is lacking from this introduction.  There is not even an attempt to be fair to Owen Thomas.

As will always be the case, 'true truth' is not welcome in this fallen world, and sometimes Christ's servants can fall into the trap of being diverted from the truth by those to whom they look up, not considering that they too might have departed from that truth in some significant aspect.  We, too, must be careful lest we fall into this same trap.