An outline of Mr. Richard Baxter's critique of a Mr. John Owen's treatise titled: "the death of death in the death of Christ."

Richard Baxter critiques Owen's work in his appendix to his "Aphorisms of Justification." I have not as yet read this work, but compose the outline from John Owen's response to Richard Baxter's criticisms in Owen's "the death of Christ" which was published about two years after his contraversial "the death of death in the death of Christ."

Mr. Baxter "chose to stand in distance from [Mr. Owen] ... concerning the nature of the payment made for sin by the blood of Christ, - whether it be ejusdem [paying the same thing which was in the obligation to be paid by the sinner] or tantidem [paying that which is not the same which was in the obligation to be paid by the sinner but only in the gracious acceptation of the one offended - God]." (p. 436)

We will outline Baxter's arguements with regards to where he stands with respect to this oppostion to Owen.

Firstly Baxter says that Owen's question (about "paying the very thing that is in the obligation and paying so much in another kind") in the death of death in the death of Christ "is not [his] question, nor anything to it." This being the case, Mr. Owen is rightly confused as to why Mr. Baxter "plucked into the following dispute" in the first place (p. 437).

The reason is that Mr. Baxter thinks that the following question is different from that just quoted, and this is the one he wants to tackle: "Whether Christ paid the idem [the same] or the tantundem [equivalent] [price]?"

Now Mr. Baxter wants to know what Mr. Owen means when he says "not equivalent" - if Owen means that the price Jesus paid on the cross was not of equal value to what was required by the sinner then Owen "fights with a shadow" for no one (neither Baxter or Grotius at least) teaches such a doctrine (according to Baxter). But if Owen means by "not equivalent" that it does not fully deliver the debtor "without the intervention of a new conscession or contract of the creditor [i.e. God] ... then I [Baxter] confess Grotius is against him , and so am I." They are against him because Owen has argued that Jesus paid the same thing which was required by sinners, and will go on to argue that he did not make a refusable payment to God which is only effective because of the "gracious acceptance" of the creditor.

But let's be fair to Mr. Baxter by being clear about his arguement. Both him and Grotius (according to Baxter) do not hold that God accepted "less in value than was due, and so remitt[ed] the rest without payment." But rather Christ made "a refusable payment, which, though equal in value" God may have chosen to "accept according to the tenor of the obligation" which he did, which "is gracious acceptance."

One final point here is that Baxter distinguishes between the payment made by Christ, and the satisfaction of the creditor. The payment being equal in value, yet refusable by God.

All this may not be that helpful to that many people, i just need to get this arguement outlined for an essay and as you can see... its pretty complex. This is the first step.