I like Dr. Owen somewhat, but he's flat-out wrong here. He follows the Penal Substitionary Theory to its logical conclusion, at least--more than can be said for most that believe it is the only (or the "best") way to describe the Atonement.

But since when can justice be served by punishing the innocent for the guilty's crimes?

Biblical Theology has an article that shows the various theories of atonement, and their logical conclusions. It also says this about the Penal Substitutionary Theory:

[It] assumes that the Trinity divided itself and punished Jesus on the Cross. It assumes that the punishment of the innocent is wrong for man, but somehow, would be right for God. It assumes that sin can be transferred from one to another, which is an ethical fiction. Righteousness can no more be imputed [in the "transfer of character" sense] to a sinner than bravery to a coward or wisdom to a fool. While the theory assumes that Christ paid the sin-debt, but yet for this key issue they are without any Scriptural evidence. Consistent Calvinists will say this payment is limited to the Elect only and to their peril they must rob the Scriptures of all the references to the will of God to save all. Most who hold to this atonement theory are inconsistent in their use of it. When were sins paid? (assuming that they were paid) On the Cross of course! Then in reality, when someone gets “saved” they are actually just waking up to the fact that they have been saved all the time; they just woke up to the fact that they were paid for 2000 years ago. The inevitable conclusion of payment is, that if Jesus died for all, then all must be acquitted on judgment day.

He then gives a better option:

The Governmental Theory
The essence of this theory is that Jesus voluntarily suffered as a substitute for punishment. To be able to punish someone they must be guilty. But to torture an innocent man is to make him suffer. Suffering inflicted upon a man to make him better in the future is not punishment, but discipline: to be punishment, it must be inflicted for evil deeds done in the past. Suffering endured for the sake of society is not punishment: if accepted voluntarily, it is the heroism of self-sacrifice; if inflicted by arbitrary authority, it is injustice on the one side and martyrdom on the other. That the suffering inflicted is deserved is a necessary element in the conception of punishment.
This is illustrated from the form of oriental law that is still practiced in some places in the Middle East today. For example, in Turkey a criminal gets a one year prison sentence. His family cannot provide on their own. So according to their law, the wife, friend, or child can substitute for the breadwinner by taking their place in prison, or could even go as far as substituting in death. In the view of the government, this would satisfy the interest of justice. Through this approach, the demands of the government are met and the guilty given grace by the innocent substitute.
With this system we can still have the pardon the Bible talks about through the provision made by our Savior. Nowhere in the Bible is it said that Jesus was punished on the Cross, but everywhere it is said that He suffered. Luke 9:22; 17:25; Acts 3:18; 26:23; 2 Tim. 3:12; 1 Pet. 1:11; 2:21; 3:18; 4:1, 13; 5:1.
If Jesus suffered, he was not punished. If he was not punished, he was not sinful on the Cross. But what about 2 Cor. 5:21, “For he hath made him to be sin for us”? The Scriptures commonly use the singular term “sin” in the sense of a sin-offering. In the Old Testament we are told that the animal sacrifice was to become “sin” but yet it is translated sin-offering. In Heb. 10:4, it is said that “it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.” If we say that Jesus literally became sin, then we must go against the Scripture and say that bull and goats were effectual offerings because they transferred sin.

See 21.

And the non-Calvinists accuse us of parsing Scripture.

And they are all saying that Jesus suffered for sinners whom God will then turn around and punish in the Lake of Fire for all eternity. Thus, God punished twice the same sins. And they call Calvinism sick!

Good point. That's why I don't accept the Penal Substitutionary Theory as the foundation upon which I base my understanding of the Atonement.

Here's Biblical Theology's Jeff Paton again:

We have insuperable philosophical and ethical difficulties in the way of receiving the statement that the guilt of the race was transferred to Christ. Character is personal, and cannot be transferred. Sin is not an entity, a substance which can be separated from the sinner and be transferred to another and be made an attribute of his character by such a transfer. Sin is the act or state of the thinker. If sin cannot exist in the abstract, it cannot be punished in the abstract. If it cannot be transferred to another, it cannot be punished in another, though a man may voluntarily suffer to save another from punishment.
While it is true that Jesus is our substitute, He is our substitute truly and strictly only in suffering, not in punishment. Sin cannot be punished and pardoned also. (in a court of law, the judge has only two options if you are guilty, he either pardons or he punishes, he cannot do both. So if sin was paid for on the cross, then the sin that He died for was punished and therefore, there is no need for God to forgive since the cause of justice has already been satisfied.)
In his presentation of the Governmental theory, Dr. Steele sees no division in the Trinity on Calvary’s Cross. The atonement is a provision and not a payment. The whole Trinity working together in God’s plan to reconcile man, there was no separation on the cross, for "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself." 2 Cor. 5:19.
Further Steele says:
There is no punishment of sin except in the person of the sinner who neglects so great a Savior. Sin was not punished on the Cross. Calvary was the scene of wondrous mercy and love, not of wrath and penalty.
What is the inevitable outcome of the doctrine that sin was punished on the cross? Whose sin? If it be answered, that of the whole human race, then universalism emerges, for God cannot in justice punish sin twice.
Now there are several reasons why I have been unable to preach this theory of the atonement (that Jesus was punished on the cross).
1. It is not exact justice to punish the innocent.
2. Guilt is personal and can not be transferred.
3. It leaves no room for a literal and true pardon from sin,….. Pardon, being a gracious remission of deserved penalty, cannot be required after the penalty has been fully endured by the substitute. In essence he is saying, if it’s paid, there is nothing left to forgive.
4. The punishment of the innocent....would be wrong for man and right for God?
5. For if the sins of all men were punished in Jesus Christ, no man can be justly punished, either in this world or in the world to come, for sins already expiated by suffering their penalty. I lay no foundations for the delusive doctrine of the final salvation of all men.
In the Governmental Theory the vicarious sufferings and death of Christ are an atonement for sin as a conditional substitute for punishment, fulfilling, on the obligation of sin, the obligation of justice in moral government. The advantages of this theory are:
1. It can be preached without mental reservations.
2. It avoids the irrational idea that Christ was literally made sin and a curse.
3. It makes no dualism or collision between the divine Persons, the Father punishing the Son.
4. It satisfies the Protector of the divine law. Personifying the law and saying it was satisfied is wrong, Only persons can be satisfied.
5. This theory (the Governmental theory) is Biblical.

Here's another website dealing with the subject.

The Reformed Calvinist argues that by the very nature of atonement all must limit it in some sense—Calvinists and Arminians. But this is not so. The Calvinist must limit atonement to the elect or have Universalism, since all for whom Christ died are irresistibly saved. So to escape the scourge of “limited atonement,” it is claimed that Arminians “limit” atonement, too!
The New Testament theory of atonement does not assume, along with the Calvinist, that atonement and benefits are one and the same. It does not assume that atonement is expiation, i.e., that all for whom He died will be saved, but that the atonement (hilasmos) is the provision for all men, and that reconciliation (katallagê) and redemption (apolutrõsis), etc. are the benefits; and that the benefits are conditional and not irresistible. This requires no limitation whatsoever.
Thus, that all for whom Christ died are irresistibly saved necessitates “limited atonement.” But that atonement is an unlimited provision for all men as an act of God knows no limitations, is therefore universal in scope and intent, and cannot be limited. The benefits of the atonement —salvation and sanctification—are for whosoever will, therefore conditional, and must not and cannot be construed as a “limitation;” for the conditions call upon “whosoever will” to meet the standard of Divine appointment with respect to the benefits. Accordingly, “limited atonement” and the “conditional benefits” of the atonement for “whosoever will” differ infinitely in nature and can never be brought together; for they stand in antithesis, the one to the other.
It is therefore an utter absurdity to claim the “limited atonement” and the “conditional benefits” of the atonement are equals in that both necessarily “limit” the atonement!
We conclude, then, that “limited atonement” is limited necessarily; and that the “conditional benefits” of the atonement are unlimited necessarily!

For the rest of this article and another article similar to it, I would suggest looking here and here.

I'd love to know how I or the writers I quoted "parsed" Scripture there.

And the non-Calvinists accuse us of parsing Scripture.

Somehow, I think that he is out of even the mainstream Arminianism. Of course, I could be wrong. I guess that the puritan logic was too much for most of the non-Calvinist to even attempt to tackle.

It's like you've been invited out for dinner. You can choose not to go, but if you stay home, you don't get the dinner.

What if you are not hungery?

In his presentation of the Governmental theory, Dr. Steele sees no division in the Trinity on Calvary’s Cross. The atonement is a provision and not a payment. The whole Trinity working together in God’s plan to reconcile man, there was no separation on the cross, for "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself." 2 Cor. 5:19.

So under this theory just who does pay for the sins? Perhaps you would like to join your Catholic breathern in Purgatory..

Excuse me for bothering you Pastors ..but do you both notice a bit of Finney in some of this?

Machett FYI

That's the problem with this world, too few truly hungry people.

"..but do you both notice a bit of Finney in some of this?"

I had, but I thought that the material on Finney was on another thread, and it might confuse things here to comment on that. Looks like the "same-o, same-o" to me.

Was that another thread, or this one?

Excuse me for bothering you Pastors ..but do you both notice a bit of Finney in some of this?

I was thinking bit o Pelagian...

It's like you've been invited out for dinner. You can choose not to go, but if you stay home, you don't get the dinner.

Sorry, but the Cross of Christ is not like dinner and the gospel ain't Rev 3:20.

Here's a hint: the gospel has a name that is exactly 5 words. And the gospel can be expressed in exactly 3 words.

BTW, using your analogy that unbelief is like not choosing to go for dinner, isn't this sin paid for? Why then should this hinder anybodies ultimate glorification more than any other sin?

That's the problem with this world, too few truly hungry people.

Exactly bab...Because of the fall, man is spiritually dead and so he does not hunger and thirst..so he will never will to come to the table. He will not even look for the restaurant:>)

He just goes along doing a little snacking here and there ,always with the goal of keeping himself comfortable. he gets to be in charge and select exactly the nibbles he wants...

But if that dead man is given a new life..ahhhhhhh he realizes he is starved for righteousnes......and there is only one place to find THAT table..and he will run to it..so he will never hunger and thirst again..

(psssss Calvinists call that being born again:>))) pass the milk please.*grin* hey Bab how be ya ??

You would be suggesting that the Lord promised to pay for all the sins in the whole world! Scripture source please....

Gladly!

NIV John 1:7
7. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe.