Book Review: From Heaven He Came and Sought Her

I have a confession to make. I might have been the worst arminian in the history of arminianism. Long before I knew what Calvinism was, and long before I’d ever heard of TULIP, I believed in a form of definite atonement (DA). I had reasoned that if God knew who was going to believe and who wasn’t, that Jesus must have only borne the sin of those he knew would eventually believe, otherwise hell would be populated with atoned for and forgiven people. Furthermore, I believed that Jesus’ prayer in the Garden for those who would eventually believe meant that he planned to only die for them on the cross. The difference between then and now is that I believed God’s knowledge of believers was based on a passive foreknowledge, not on any sort of decree. It was a terribly sloppy soteriology, and I had no worked-out doctrine of atonement to help me make sense of it all, but I do think this admission means I might have been the worst Wesleyan-Arminian that ever existed.

Many new Calvinists struggle deeply over the question of the atonement: was it universal, with the intention of trying to save all mankind, or was it specifically intended to redeem the elect? For me, this was a relatively inoffensive doctrine once I came around to the other four points of the beautiful flower of Calvinism. I found the idea of atoned for and forgiven people burning in hell be a far more unthinkable and offensive doctrine.

The editors of this present volume define definite atonement as follows: “in the death of Jesus Christ, the triune God intended to achieve the redemption of every person given to the Son by the Father in eternity past, and to apply the accomplishments of his sacrifice to each of them by the Spirit” (33).

In some ways its difficult to review From Heaven He Came and Sought Her (FHHCASH). The book is 700 pages, with 23 chapters written by 21 authors, each organized under one of four areas of interest. Part I is geared towards addressing historical concern in relation to DA. In Part II nearly 200 pages are devoted to addressing DA in regard to specific Scriptures. Part III is intended to deal with the systematic issues related to DA. Finally, Part IV of the book deals more closely with DA from the perspective of evangelism and pastoral care. The difficulty of reviewing stems from the variety of authors, the sheer number of chapters, and the fact that this is a blog post, not a theological journal that can run 30 pages in length and detail every argument. In the end, readers will have to forgive my brevity and resistance to summarizing every chapter.

All in all, I think that the editors plotted the map well when they considered the structure of such an ambitious book. One need only look at the Table of Contents to get the impression that the editors tried to cover definite atonement from as many relevant angles as could be done. My first impression of FHHCASH was to think of this as an introduction to definite atonement, which was a mistake. While there are certain chapters I would direct someone to if they wanted to understand the issues, the book can get quite complex towards the middle (as it should, for such an important issue). With regard to beginners, if one begins even with chapter 1, they will find that the authors assume a certain familiarity with the subject on their reader’s part. It is in that sense that I would probably recommend a neophyte begin at the end of this work; particularly the last two chapters. One of those chapters is by Sinclair Ferguson and addresses pastoral issues related to assurance and what bearing DA might or might not have on it. The other chapter is by John Piper and deals with the larger scale question of what bearing the truthfulness of DA has on the chief end of the church to glorify God and enjoy him forever.

One of the most important questions I asked myself while reading this book was whether the arguments of hypothetical universalists were being represented fairly. The authors are quite conscientious about using actual arguments from actual theologians with opposing viewpoints. Men such as Amyraut, John Davenant, John McLeod Campbell, Karl Barth, Bruce Ware, and Mark Driscoll are names that frequently come up throughout. They are quoted extensively and the authors seem to fairly engage with their viewpoints. I have read some reviews where others have said misrepresentations and caricatures are used in the more polemical sections of this book. The places where that may happen is in those sections where general perspectives (I'm thinking of a few places in Letham's chapter that stand out in my memory) are engaged with and not specific authors. I understand this temptation, but thankfully most of the polemics in this book are dealing with the actual views of actual theologians whose books are actually in print.

I already stood persuaded that definite atonement is taught in Scripture before I read this book. I am not an unbiased reviewer. That being said, I think this will probably become the book that opponents of DA will need to interact with in the future. Primarily, I think this is because From Heaven He Came and Sought Her engages with the best opponents of DA in a way that (I think) is fair, rigorous, comprehensive (in its scope), and pastoral.

Will the collective argument set forth in FHHCASH persuade those who hold to hypothetical universalism? Certainly not all of them. I know a few proponents of HU who are reading this book now, and I am quite eager to see how they interact with FHHCASH, and especially to see if they feel their best works were fairly engaged by the various authors.

If you already believe in DA, is there any reason for you to read this? I can think of a few ways that this book will function for those who have already come over to the good side of the force:

1. You will come away from this book with a more robust understanding of Hypothetical Universalism. It’s more sophisticated than most of us give it credit for! It may surprise some of you to know that defenders of HU do more than just quote John 3:16 until their heads fall off.
2. 
You will come away from this book with a more robust understanding of Christ’s work on the cross.
3. As you're reading this book you will probably find yourself worshipping the God who has perfectly purchased and atoned for his people. If you don’t then you’ve got some ice-cold blood running through those veins.
4. 
You will have a future resource for thinking about “problem texts” (we know they’re there!) that defenders of definite atonement need to be prepared to discuss.



I loved the book. I knew I’d love it before I read it based on other reviews, the blurbs, and the hype. There are weak(ish) chapters (Hogg and Haykin), there are truly informative chapters (Djaballah’s chapter on Amyraut—whose works are only available in French stands out, along with the chapter by Gattis on the debates at Dordt), and then there are chapters that are absolutely essential reading (Letham, Motyer and Garry Williams). Even the relatively “weak” chapters here are still important reading and helpful, but if somebody is going to browse the book and read some things and not others, I would make sure that Motyer’s chapter and Letham’s chapter receive their special attention.

As I said before, I strongly suspect this will become the go-to resource for years to come with regard to definite atonement. Believers in DA will find their appreciation of the atonement reinforced by this book. Opponents of DA will find numerous sparring partners here as well. The Gibson Brothers have done a great service to the church by editing this volume. Also, it’s officially the prettiest book that I own.

Amazon Hardback
Amazon Kindle

Of The Removal of Fear For Our Sins

Earlier today I was in the midst of chastising my daughter for some pretty upsetting behavior. As I was doing so, I found myself at a crossroads. I could either say, "If you do that again, I will spank you!" or I considered another more Gospel-oriented approach. And so I decided to turn down the Gospel road. I leaned down to her crying face and said, "Sweetheart, do you love me?" to which she replied through pouty lips, "Yes. But you're gonna spank me." I paused and said, "I'm not going to spank you. But I do want you to listen to me. Do you love me?" She said, "Yes." I said, "If you love me, then please show me by your actions. You don't have to be afraid of being spanked. I don't want you to just do what I say because you're afraid you're going to be punished every time you mess up. I want your heart, and that means that I want you to obey me because you love me, because you want to please me. Because it gives you pleasure to bring joy to your Dad. That's the way God is with us. Jesus takes away our fear of death and condemnation so that we can obey him out of love instead of fear. That's what the Gospel is all about. Now you're old enough to understand what I'm saying, okay? God has taken the punishment from us so that we don't have to constantly be afraid of being punished, and that's what I'm doing with you, okay? Now, will you please apologize to your brother - not because you're afraid of me, but because you love me?"

Now, I don't want to drag anyone through the mud, but another family member (not my wife) chimed in and said, "Yes, but there's still an element of fear. We still have to fear disobeying God, because He does punish us when we sin." I just felt like a whole lifetime of poor Gospel preaching went into that comment. Is it possible that we can hear the Gospel our whole lives, sit under Protestant preaching all our lives, attend and teach Sunday School all our lives - and still completely miss the Gospel?

If you are talking to someone who still has to fear any condemnation from God, then you are not speaking to a Christian. And if you are not speaking to a Christian, then that person ought to hear the condemnation that is inherent in the Law for those who are not in Christ. They have reason to fear.

This is the greatness of the Gospel - in Jesus Christ, God has removed all of the punishment due his people. Any and every bit of God's wrath which we are worthy of was born in the body of our Lord. Either we are forgiven or we are not. God does not partially pour his wrath on us. He does not place some of our sin on Jesus and the rest on us. This is where a really solid view of the atonement is crucial. If we miss this, then we miss the Gospel. Jesus removes God's wrath completely from his people.

"There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love" (1 Jn 4:18). If perfect love really casts out all fear, then Christ's perfect love definitely casts out all fear. Obedience to God (lets call it Sanctification) does not run on the fuel of fear. It is fueled by love. If you are putting the fuel of fear into your tank, you will fall flat every time.

This is a message I need to constantly remind myself of - especially when I am in the mire of sin and condemnation. Yes, I should put my sins to death, but I should not do it because I am afraid of condemnation or of being damned if I cross some sort of "sin boundary." Christ has taken that possibility as far as the east is from the west. Rather, my new motive is pleasing Christ. We move from having a negative relationship with God to a positive one. Rather than looking over our shoulder at a task-master, we look straight ahead into our Father's eyes, knowing that no sin in our lives is too wretched to separate us from Him.

In this respect, Luther's commentary on Galatians has been a great comfort to me. In one particularly simple and yet pointed passage, Luther considers that Christ has born our sins and concludes that "All this is of wonderful comfort to a conscience troubled by the enormity of sin. Sin cannot harm those who believe in Christ, because He has overcome sin by His death."

In another place, Luther speaks peace to our consciences again:

Practice this knowledge and fortify yourself against despair, particularly in the last hour, when the memory of past sins assails the conscience. Say with confidence: "Christ, the Son of God, was given not for the righteous, but for sinners. If I had no sin I should not need Christ. No, Satan, you cannot delude me into thinking I am holy. The truth is, I am all sin..." Let us equip ourselves against the accusations of Satan with this and similar passages of Holy Scripture. If he says, "Thou shalt be damned," you tell him: "No, for I fly to Christ who gave Himself for my sins. In accusing me of being a damnable sinner, you are cutting your own throat, Satan. You are reminding me of God's fatherly goodness toward me, that He so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. In calling me a sinner, Satan, you really comfort me above measure." With such heavenly cunning we are to meet the devil's craft and put from us the memory of sin.

With what greater words can I speak than these? In this blog post, I hope most of all to speak to the troubled consciences of my brothers whom I know are hurting from the sting of sin in one way or another. The longer I follow Jesus, the more I become convinced that the Gospel is for us, all the time. That we ought to practice preaching the Gospel to ourselves at all times. That we ought never to tire of the old message that our sin has been removed. That if we ever think that we're mature enough to move on from that old message that we're as immature as we could possibly be - regardless our education or status in the church.

Measuring Our Response to Rob Bell

After Justin Taylor shared his post "Rob Bell: Universalist?", I was immediately ready to throw the good book at Bell. Believe me; I'm as eager as the next guy to condemn Rob Bell for being a false teacher - if, in fact, that is what he is.

The problem, as I see it, is that while at first I saw no ambiguity in the book's blurb (which you can read at JT's blog), and while at first I saw no ambiguity in the video that accompanies the blurb, I have since changed my mind.

You see, the only definitive statement I can find from Bell in all of this is that:

• "[A] loving God would never sentence human souls to eternal suffering."

If this were a heresy trial, I'm not sure that the verdict would be guilty, simply based on this one line. The problem with hanging our hat on this sentence is that Bell may, in the end, be taking the line that "God isn't sending people to Hell - their sin is."

LOVE WINS. from Rob Bell on Vimeo.

Someone might argue that his rhetorical flourish regarding Ghandi's presence in Hell is likewise an indicator that he is outright denying the biblical teaching on Hell. The problem is, there's still wiggle-room. He might be questioning the presumptuousness regarding one's attitude toward the eternal fate of another when, in fact, we don't really know. As an example of the type of wiggle-room that might be going on: "You don't know about Ghandi's soul; maybe he was saved before he was assassinated" or something like that.

The video itself certainly looks definitive at first glance. But it is composed of 95% rhetorical questions. Typical Emergent stuff - you know, questions are the only real answers (blah blah blah). Anyway, it has certainly been presented to make Bell look like he denies that any are damned; but there are a lot of possibilities here about what is really going on. He could be an annihilationist (which we must grant is awful, but still not the same thing as universalism). He could be a pluralist (i.e. John Hick). He could have some sort of Barthian universalism in mind ("God's 'yes' is stronger than man's 'no.' "). He could just straight up believe that Jesus died for every man, and that thus every man will be saved (true universalism). And of course, there are a host of other horrifying possibilities as well. The possibilities are so varied that I would be embarassed to go on record about this until we know more, although the second we know what is really being taught, we can get to work picking apart, critiquing, and condemning, if necessary.

Part of my reaction here is that I have many friends who are diehard Rob Bell fans - they listen to all of his sermons and read his books. I asked them point blank what they have heard the man teach on the subject of Hell. They told me that he has taught on heaven and hell before and that he most definitely did not teach from a universalist perspective, so all of this is very surprising to them. As such, this book would represent a watershed moment in Bell's constant theological development. Considering that universalism is not in line with his past teachings on the subject, I think that charity may be the best approach until we know what sort of theology he's actually going to be presenting.

It may be that everything is as it seems, and Rob Bell has, in fact, outed himself and abandoned the faith once delivered. But I am one of those voices who is patient enough to wait a month and see what's really going on. The alternative is, he ends up not being a universalist, based on the possible loopholes I just presented, and we Calvinists and Reformed-types end up looking like the caricature that has been created for us - judgmental, knee-jerk, irrationally paranoid and the like. I don't think those caricatures are fair or accurate, but we could be playing right into them if we aren't measured and cautious in our response to Bell - especially considering that this is a life-or-death, heaven-or-hell issue. Literally.

At the end, the point of this post is simply: it may be wise to wait until Rob Bell's new book comes out and we read it before we consign him to the Hell he might be denying.

St. Anselm's Cur Deus Homo: A Rookie's Eye View

Having been absolutely stunned by the greatness of St. Athanasius' The Incarnation of the Word of God earlier this year, I thought that I ought to read Anselm's classic work in defense of the penal satisfaction view of the atonement, Cur Deus Homo (or Why God Became Man). It turns out, this is a tremendously short and potent treatment of the subject.

I have little understanding of the nuances of Anselm's theology beyond my own reading of The Monologion and Proslogion during my undergraduate studies. Not a fan of the Ontological argument myself (and I believe Van Til regarded it as a completely autonomous, man-centered non-argument) I nevertheless have a huge appreciation for Anselm's piety, his wisdom, his intellect, and for his faithfulness in articulating and defending the Christian understanding of the atonement.

Having finished the book, however, I was most pleased to find such a remarkable and straightforward statement of the Gospel from a period which many Christians regard as a dark time in the church's history. To read someone like Athanasius or Anselm and to see the Gospel light shine so brightly and clearly is incredibly satisfying. Sure Anselm makes some questionable statements at times, but it is possible to have a problem with some of the trees and yet still completely love this forest. One thing which I have heard is that Calvin's understanding of the atonement differs somewhat from Anselm's. I would need to do further study to understand the nuances between their views, but for my own part I presently have not noticed any significant differences.

Among other things, I noticed in the book that Anselm has a very high view of Divine sovereignty. At one point in the book, Anselm states quite clearly that God decrees sins.

Another thing which I noticed was that Anselm's unfortunately named sparring partner, Boso, reminds me a great deal of a hip-hop style 'hype man.' Check out these zingers:

• "No reasonable being can think otherwise."
• "All that you say is satisfactory to me."
• "Your speech gratifies my heart."
• "Nothing can be more sound."
• The list goes on. Boso really respects Anselm.

Overall, reading Anselm gave me another opportunity to enjoy the fragrance of freshness that good, old, true theology has wafting over it. It reminded me of Lewis' statement in the introduction to Athanasius' great work:

The student is half afraid to meet one of the great philosophers face to face. He feels himself inadequate and thinks he will not understand him. But if he only knew, the great man, just because of his greatness, is much more intelligible than his modern commentator.

Most importantly, reading Anselm's Cur Deus Homo reminded me of the terrible weight of my own sin before a holy God, and of the greatness of our Savior, Jesus Christ, who bore my own wrath on the tree and took upon himself all that was mine, so that I would receive all that is his.

Atonement

Gabriel Fluhrer on the Atonement

On Monday a good friend of mine, Gabriel Fluhrer, was on the radio program Iron Sharpens Iron to discuss a new book he edited titled Atonement. You can find out more about this show here and the audio to the program is here. Yes, if you click on the link and hear a women speaking Spanish, you are at the right place. Who know Gabriel could speak such good Spanish? We know he could do a great impression of Dr. Derek Thomas, but Spanish we did not know. All joking aside, the radio program, which is in English, is on a Spanish speaking station, so wait for the Spanish to be done and then the program will begin. Enjoy!

Lee Irons on N.T. Wright's Doctrine of the Atonement

Lee Irons has helpfully summarized Wright's doctrine of the atonement concluding that in some ways Wright teaches an unorthodox doctrine of the atonement. The following is how Irons concludes his post.

So where does N. T. Wright stand on the atonement? I have a hard time being as charitable as Piper, who tries to believe the best and merely asks for clarification. To me, it looks more like a case of using orthodox labels to refer to a position that is not orthodox. At the end of the day, for Bishop Wright, sin is an impersonal evil force, not personal rebellion against God; sin has bad consequences, but does not elicit God's punitive wrath against the sinner; and the cross is to be understood as some version of the Christus Victor theory in which Christ defeats evil by letting it do its worst to him, not as a penal satisfaction of divine justice.

Be sure to read the rest of the post!

UPDATE: Here is a helpful reminder from Pastor Mark Jones on the atonement.

For Whom Did Christ Die: Three Views

Michael Bird has a series of interviews on his blog that attempt to answer the question, for whom did Christ die. The three views represented in this series are: Arminianism (Ben Witherington), Amyraldianism (Michael Jensen) and Calvinism (Paul Helm). These short concise answers are helpful to give an introduction to the three main way Christians have atepted to answer this question. As most of our readers will know, the bloggers here at Bring the Books believe that the Calvinist view of the atonement best articulates the teaching of the Bible, as a whole. I would commend these posts for your reading.

The Pittsburg Gym Shooter's Theology

What I'm about to do is unfair. No doubt about it. But I'm going to do it anyway, because it's something that I've said for a very long time - for years, actually. I have long claimed that proclaiming a view of the atonement which says that Jesus died for each and every sin of every single person is destructive. Now, I have proof, plain as day.

Earlier this week, George Sodini fulfilled a year-long plan by shooting up an aerobics class and killing 4 women, plus himself. This was a horrible event. One disturbing aspect is the blogs that he left behind, detailing his mental state and even his plan of what he was going to do. The blog is a disturbing read because it is seemingly that of a rational (at least seemingly) man who lived a purposeless existence and knew it. Throughout his writings, one finds many of his self-justifying reasons for what he is about to do. At one point early on, he mentions that at his church they teach that God will forgive any and all sins - even mass-murder. A few months later, days before carrying out this despicable act, Sodini writes the following:

Maybe soon, I will see God and Jesus. At least that is what I was told. Eternal life does NOT depend on works. If it did, we will all be in hell. Christ paid for EVERY sin, so how can I or you be judged BY GOD for a sin when the penalty was ALREADY paid. People judge but that does not matter. I was reading the Bible and The Integrity of God beginning yesterday, because soon I will see them.

I would say that the problem is that he never had the lordship of Jesus Christ preached to him, but he may have. The important part, which he latched onto was the proclaimation which he repeatedly received that Jesus died for all of his sins. When you tell people that all of their sins are forgiven, when you tell them that Jesus died for their sins, and you evangelize them based on the fact that Jesus died for their sins and that person decides not to respond to the message of the gospel, you stand a chance of them remembering someday that Jesus already died for their sins. The proclamation that Jesus covers your sins before they even respond to the gospel is, in my opinion, dangerous. Now, it's not the fault of the Hypothetical Universalists that George Sodini was a psychopath, I just found it profoundly interesting that he remembered Jesus' universal atoning sacrifice days before killing 5 people and then taking comfort in that. Let the hate-mail begin.

Why Did Jesus Have To Die?

Batzig Top 15

A good friend of mine, Nick Batzig, posted a top 15 list of books on the cross and left out the greatest single book (outside the Bible) on the cross. Head over to his post and see if you can figure out what book he left out.

In Defense of James White: Part 2

In the comment section of the latest post at Controversial Calvinism concerning Dr. White, Steve wants those of us who are defending Dr. White to provide a quote that proves that Dr. White has not changed his views with regard to hyper-Calvinism. . I find this very odd indeed. In the original post Steve asserts that Dr. White has changed his views. His argument is that Dr. White has moved from a hyper-Calvinist to what others are calling a "high" Calvinist.

The odd thing is that in his post he offers no quotes or citations where Dr. White changes his views, not one. You would think that Steve would have quotes from Dr. White from years ago that contradict what he is not saying. But there is nothing like that in his post. Further, Steve admits that he has not "read all of his [Dr. White's] work" on this subject. One wonders how much he has actually read. It seems odd to me that a person who gives no evidence of his assertion and has not read the author's works on the subject would expect those who have read all of Dr. White's works on the subject and who have listened to him teach on this subject for 12 years to give evidence. Everything in me wants to leave this post at that. However, to stop the mouth of the naysayers, I will provide a few quotes.

Before that, however, let us review. Steve is asserting that Dr. White has three new beliefs: "1) God loves all men, though God's love is not monolithic; 2) God's will (his revealed will) is that all men obey his commands to repent and believe the gospel; 3) In that context (revealed will and command) we can say that God desires the salvation of all men." Thus, if I can show a quote that affirms anyone of these three points in Dr. Whites written works, the case can be settled that Dr. White has not changed his view.

In his book on the subject of Calvinism, The Potters Freedom, Dr. White says the following in commenting on Acts 17:30, "Actually, the text says that God wills for 'all' to come to repentance, and of course, this is quite true" (TPF, 149, emphasis added). This one quote should be enough to show that Dr. White has held to Steve's second point from at least the time of writing this book. But there is more. On the same page Dr. White goes on to state, "Next Dr. Geisler confuses the prescriptive will of God found in His law, which commands all men everywhere to repent, with the gift of repentance given to the elect in regeneration. It does not follow that if it is God's will to bring the elect to repentance that the law does not command repentance of everyone" (TPF, 149-150). Again, this is a clear affirmation of the second point that Steve seems to think Dr. White has changed on.

While I disagree that the accused should have to provide evidence that he is not guilty, I have provided the above evidence in an attempt to show that, in fact, Dr. White has not changed his views on the issues at hand. Now, the right thing for Steve to do is apologize to Dr. White and rejoice that another person in the Kingdom of God has a proper understanding of the will of God for all to repent, even the non-elect. Will this happen, we will have to keep our eyes on Controversial Calvinism to find out.

In Defense of James White

I am no expert on who is and who is not a hypercalvinist. Sorry, I cannot be an expert on everything. I do not have to the time to parse out all the fine distinctions, but one thing I am an expert on (tongue-in-cheek) is the theology of James White. I have read everything he has written on the subject of Calvinism, even the hard to find out of print books like Drawn By the Father. Plus, I have been a faithful listener to his radio program for over 12 years. In fact, I listened to his show, The Dividing Line, before I was Reformed.

I give this background so I can say with much confidence that James White has not, in any way, changed his views on the subject of Calvinism (God's love for the non-elect and the free offer of the gospel). The reason I say all this is due to this article. The author claims that Dr. White has recently, because of "pressure," changed his views, "kicking and screaming," on Calvinism and by implication has moved from a hypercalvinst to a "high" Calvinist. Once again, I am not an expert on hypercalvinism, so James White may in fact be one (which I highly doubt) but one thing that I am certain on is that Dr. White has not changed his views on these subjects in the last 12 years. It is not Dr. White's fault if you just now understand his views. The right thing to do in this situation is so say "sorry" for the misunderstanding, move on and not to dig your heels in and place the blame at the feet of Dr. White. Many bad things could be said about Dr. White, but that he is unclear is not one of them. His theological views are clear and open to anyone who want to take the time and read his published works on the subject. So, "Steve," author of the article, I am suggesting that you read Dr. White's works on this subject before you blog about him again.

James White on the John 3:16 Conference

Our readers know that we are not a blog that just posts videos and links all the time, but when a good link or video presents itself, we like to post them. I think this video is one of the good examples.

Bavinck on the perfect Savior

If Jesus is truly the Savior, he must also really save his people, not potentially but really and in fact, completely and eternally. And this, actually, constitutes the core of the difference between the proponents and the opponents of particular satisfaction (atonement). This difference is defined incorrectly or at least far from completely when one formulates it exclusively in the question whether Christ died and made satisfaction for all humans or only the elect...The real issue concerned the value and power of Christ's sacrifice, the nature of the work of salvation. To save, said the Reformed, is to save truly, wholly, for eternity...Those whom God loves and from whom Christ made satisfaction are saved without fail.

Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics vol. 3 p. 467

Can it Get Sweeter to Your Reformed Ear?

The whole question, therefore, concerns simply the purpose of God in the mission of his Son. What was the design of Christ’s coming into the world, and doing and suffering all He actually did and suffered? Was it merely to make the salvation of all men possible; to remove the obstacles which stood in the way of the offer of pardon and acceptance to sinners? or, Was it specially to render certain the salvation of his own people, i.e., of those given to Him by the Father? The latter question is affirmed by Augustinians, and denied by their opponents. It is obvious that if there be no election of some to everlasting life, the atonement can have no special reference to the elect. It must have equal reference to all mankind. But it does not follow from the assertion of its having a special reference to the elect that it had no reference to the non-elect. Augustinians readily admit that the death of Christ had a relation to man, to the whole human family, which it had not to the fallen angels. It is the ground on which salvation is offered to every creature under heaven who hears the gospel; but it gives no authority for a like offer to apostate angels. It moreover secures to the whole race at large, and to all classes of men, innumerable blessings, both providential and religious. It was, of course, designed to produce these effects; and, therefore, He died to secure them. In view of the effects which the death of Christ produces on the relation of all mankind to God, it has in all ages been customary with Augustinians to say that Christ died "suffcienter proomnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electi," sufficiently for all, efficaciously only for the elect. There is a sense, therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense in which He died for the elect alone. The simple question is, had the death of Christ a reference to the elect which it had not to other men? Did He come into the world to secure the salvation of those given to Him by the Father, so that the other effects of his work are merely incidental to what was done for the attainment of that object?

Charles Hodge
Systematic Theology, p. 545

"Jesus Died For Someone's Sins But Not Mine"

"Jesus died for somebodys sins but not mine
Meltin in a pot of thieves
Wild card up my sleeve
Thick heart of stone
My sins my own
They belong to me, me"

Patti Smith "Gloria"

I appreciate the brutal honesty in Patti Smith's words here. I would, however, say that it is never correct for someone to say words like these, believer or not. The reason is that there is a high level of presumption which says that they know they will never become a Christian, never find forgiveness, and never recognize a need for their sins to be atoned for. Biblically speaking, no one may ever be presumptuous enough to declare that "my sins my own/they belong to me, me." Maybe. Maybe your sins are your own, and you will atone for them yourself. But maybe you will someday come to faith in Jesus and find that He has atoned for you already. Guard your words, Patti Smith, for you do not know what the future holds.

What a disservice we do to unbelievers when we (in the spirit of hypothetical universalism) tell them that Jesus died for their sins. These are people who do not want an atonement; they probably do not even believe they need an atonement. And this atonement actually does nothing for the indifferent pagan.

Nowhere in Scripture do we ever find someone being told to repent on the basis that Jesus has already provided atonement for them. Everywhere, we find that people are told to repent and believe in Jesus - essentially - on principle. Repent because eternal life is at stake. Repent and believe for the forgiveness of sins. But no one is told in the Bible, "Believe in Jesus because he died for your sins." Go ahead, look it up; try to find it just once.

I actually worked with a fellow named Chris* who once told me that he didn't need to become a Christian. I asked why, and he said, "Well all my life, I've been told by people that Jesus died for my sins. I thought about it one day and realized that if Jesus died for my sins, then I'm off the hook; whether I become a Christian or not." My response was stunned silence, because universalism makes way more sense than hypothetical universalism, and I realized this in that moment. (Actually, later, I told him that he had no reason to believe that Jesus died for his sins, and that those people who told him that were well meaning idiots who thought that "Jesus died for your sins" was the Ace up their sleeve. Sorry, hypothetical universalists.)

Think about it: Jesus provides atonement for you. What fear should you have of hell? On what basis will you be sent to hell if your sins are atoned for? On what basis?

*This is an absolutely true story.

Particular Redemption and 2 Peter 2:1

There is a great article posted on Reformation Theology titled "Does 2 Peter 2:1 Deny Particular Redemption?." 2 Peter 2:1 was, personally, one of the most difficult passages in my journey to a fully rounded and robust biblical doctrine of particular redemption. This article points out some of the interpretive questions that need to be asked when deciding on the meaning of this passage.

1) Derive soteriological truths from soteriological passages (this isn't);
2) "Lord" is δεσπότης (despotes--sovereign title) not κύριος (kurios--soteriological title);
3) Is this the Father or the Son? Can it be proven?
4) "bought" (ἀγοράζω) has no purchase price mentioned, which would be the only time that happens in the NT *if* this is a soteriological reference;
5) The passage says the Master did not *potentially* purchase these men, but that He did, in fact, purchase these men (sovereignty, not redemption). Compare Deuteronomy 32:5-6 for parallel use in the OT.
6) Derive the extent of the atonement from Hebrews that discusses it, not from 2 Peter's reference to false teachers.

R.L. Dabney on Hypothetical Universalism

R. L Dabney is one of the greatest theologians in the South's history. According to Wikipedia he

was an American Christian theologian, a Southern Presbyterian pastor, and Confederate Army chaplain. He was also chief of staff and biographer to Stonewall Jackson. His biography of Jackson remains in print today.

Dabney and James Henley Thornwell were two of Southern Presbyterianism's most influential scholars. They were both Calvinist, Old School Presbyterians, and social conservatives. Conservative Presbyterians still study their theological works, particularly in the Presbyterian Church in America and Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

In his work Systematic Theology he takes up the theme of Christ's sacrifice. In his second section on this topic he deals with the view's held by the French theologian Moses Amyraut, who is best know for his modifications to classic Calvinism. In his handling of Amyraldism he shows how the hypothetical nature of the cross is untenable.

First Dabney sets the stage for his refutation.

The view of the Hypothetical Universalists was professedly Calvinistic, and was doubtless, and is, sincerely held in substance by many honest and intelligent Calvinists, (e. g., Richard Baxter, R. Hall, Bellamy) although Turrettin and Dr. Hodge condemn it as little better than Arminianism in disguise. It presents the divine plan in redemption thus. God decreed from eternity, to create the human race, to permit the fall; then in His infinite compassion, to send Christ to atone for every human being’s sins, (conditioned on his believing); but also foreseeing that all, in consequence of total depravity and the bondage of their will, would inevitably reject this mercy if left to themselves, He selected out of the whole a definite number of elect, to whom He also gave, in His sovereign love, grace to “make them willing in the day of His power.” The non elect, never enjoying this persuasive grace, infallibly choose to reject the provided atonement, and so, as its application is suspended on faith, they fail to receive the benefit of it, and perish.

With this understanding of Amyraldism set in place, Dabney turns to a refutation of this aberrant view.

This theory, if amended so as to say that God sent His Son to provide a vicarious satisfaction for the sin of all whom His Providence intended to place under the Gospel offers, would be liable to less objection than the others. But several objections lie against it. In the first place, the advantage proposed to be gained by it appears illusory. It was hoped that this view would meet the cavils urged by Arminians against the seeming lack of candor in offering Christ’s sacrifice for reconciliation to those for whom God never designed it. But I submit that this cavil is not in the least dissolved by saying that God designed Christ’s sacrifice to provide satisfaction for every non elect man’s guilt, which would avail for his atonement only on condition of his true faith, while the omniscience of God showed him that this sinner would certainly refuse this faith, in consequence of his total depravity, and God’s purpose was distinctly formed not to remove that depravity by His effectual grace. To say that God purposed, even conditionally, the reconciliation of that sinner by Christ’s sacrifice, while also distinctly proposing to do nothing effectual to bring about the fulfillment of the condition He knew the man would surely refuse, is contradictory. It is hard to see how, on this scheme, the sacrifice is related more beneficially to the non elect sinner, than on the strict Calvinist’s plan. Second, the statement of Amyraut involves the same vice of arrangement pointed out in the supralapsarian and sublapsarian plans. It tends towards assigning a sequence to the parts of the decree, as it subsists in God’s mind. He thinks and purposes it as one contemporaneous, mutually connected whole. The student is referred to the remarks already made upon this error. Third, and chiefly, Armyraut has to represent the graces which work effectual calling, while free and unmerited indeed, as yet the free gift of the Father’s electing love, irrespective of Christ’s purchase, (for that is represented as made in common for all) and not mediated to the elect sinner through Christ’s sacrifice. Since Christ’s intercession is expressly grounded in His sacrifice, we shall have to conceive of the benefit of effectual calling as also not mediated to the sinner by Christ’s intercession. But this is all contrary to Scripture, which represents Christ as the channel through which all saving benefits come, and the very graces which fulfill the instrumental conditions of salvation as a part of His purchase for His people. See, for instance, Acts 5:31; Rom. 8:32; Eph. 1:3, 4; 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 2:14; 2 Pet. 1:2, 3.

Dabney, Systematic Theology, p., 519-520.

The Glory of Limited Atonement

John Murray is one of the great Reformed theologians in history. His thought and work on the doctrine of redemption is without parallel. Yes it is brief, but that is part of its grandeur. He is able to cover a vast topic with great depth, with only a few strokes of the pen.

His chapter on the extent of the atonement is one of the best. In this chapter he takes head on those who claim that Christ died to make salvation possible—a so-called ‘hypothetical universalism.’ He sets his theological arsenal directly at those who use the seemingly universalistic passages and shows that this is a false understanding. He concludes that the very glory of the cross is at stake. Those who claim that Christ did not secure the salivation of the elect on the cross are diminishing the glory of Christ. If Christ did not die in a unique way for the elect, then the cross loses its splendor. He concludes this chapter with these poignant words:

We can readily see, therefore, that although universal terms are sometimes used in connection with the atonement these terms cannot be appealed to as establishing the doctrine of universal atonement. In some cases, as we have found, it can be shown that all-inclusive universalism is excluded by the considerations of the immediate context. In other cases there are adequate reasons why universal terms should be used without the implication of distributively universal extent. Hence no conclusive support for the doctrine of universal atonement can be derived from universalistic expressions. The question must be determined on the basis of other evidence. This evidence we have tired to present. It is easy for the proponents of universal atonement to make offhand appeal to a few texts. But this method is not worthy of the serious student of Scripture. It is necessary for us to discover what redemption or atonement really means. And when we examine the Scripture we find that the glory of the cross of Christ is bound up with the effectiveness of its accomplishment. Christ redeemed us to God by his blood, he gave himself a ransom that he might deliver us from iniquity. The atonement is efficacious substitution.