Epistle to Diognetus: Penal, Substitionary Atonement & Double Imputation

Epistle to Diognetus, Chapter IX: “He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!”

Interview with Mr. (Rev. Prof.) Lee Gatiss: "Limited Atonement"

Limited Atonement — An interview with Lee Gatiss (part 1)

 Oct 8, 2013   

       

I (Lucas Bradburn) had the pleasure recently of interviewing Lee Gatiss, Director of Church Society and Editor of The NIV Proclamation Bible (Hodder). Lee is also Review Editor of the journal Churchman, and Series Editor of The Reformed Evangelical Anglican Library. He has studied history and theology at Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia), and trained for Anglican ministry at Oak Hill (London). He has served in several Anglican churches including St Helen’s, Bishopsgate and the Church Society Trust parish of St Botolph’s, Barton Seagrave. Lee is also Adjunct Lecturer in Church History at Wales Evangelical School of Theology and the author of many books, articles, and reviews. One of his most recent books is For Us and Our Salvation: ‘Limited Atonement’ in the Bible, Doctrine, History, and Ministry.

 

In your new book, For Us and Our Salvation, you note that you are doing doctoral work on John Owen. What exactly are you writing on? How has Owen most influenced you? Was he the inspiration for your book?

My PhD, just submitted, is on Owen’s Hebrews commentary, which at 2 million words in length is more than twice as long as the whole Bible. So that has kept me busy, as you might expect! I’ve looked at his major interlocutors and sources, e.g. Socinians (anti-Trinitarians), his use of Jewish material such as Targums and Talmuds, his covenant theology, and his interaction with Roman Catholic exegesis. Post-Reformation exegesis has a bad reputation, but I think Owen has a lot to offer and the reputation is unfair.

I know it might be surprising to some, but no, Owen was not the inspiration for my book on limited atonement, which I’ve tinkered away at for about 15 years. Nor did I come to his commentary because of his doctrine of the cross. I wanted to do research which enabled me to use the Greek and Hebrew I was taught at seminary, but which integrated that somehow with doctrine and history (my undergraduate major at Oxford). Studying an old commentary (I mean, “historical exegesis” or “exegetical history”) seemed like a good way to achieve that integration, and I’ve learned heaps from doing this, and hopefully sharpened my skills while producing something of interest and value in the undiscovered country of seventeenth-century biblical interpretation.

Which arguments that Owen (specifically in The Death of Death) makes do you find to be the most compelling? Which arguments do you find to be the most problematic?

Mike Horton from Westminster Seminary in California first taught me the logical approach to this doctrine when we met in Oxford about 20 years ago, and he stole it entirely from Owen. The atonement must be either:

For all the sins of all people
For some sins of all people
For all the sins of some people

Which is it? Thinking through this question, and the consequences of going down each route, I find quite useful. That being said, I don’t find all the details of Owen’s exegesis of the so-called “problem texts” quite so compelling. But that’s OK, because Reformed exegetes have not had a monolithic, standardised approach to handling those texts, even if they are generally agreed on the doctrine.


For the rest, see:

http://www.credomag.com/2013/10/08/limited-atonement-%e2%80%94-an-interview-with-lee-gatiss-part-1/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CredoMagazineBlog+%28Credo+Magazine+Blog%29
 

Mr. Andy Underhile: Christ, Limited Atonement, & Un-Reformed Anglicans

Mr. Andy Underhile at: http://andycontramundum.blogspot.com/2012/01/how-christ-limits-atonement-1.html   

How Christ Limits the Atonement #1

When considering the question of the extent of the atonement, it is important to state that most theories regarding it are quite out of bounds because they fail to see that the extent is defined by its nature.(Which is why we refuted objections to the doctrine of the atonement, thus defining its nature, before we took on this topic.) So the real question is regarding the nature of the atonement. The nature circumscribes its extent. It extends as far as its nature intends it to extend. Discussions on this subject are almost always carried on as if the extent of the atonement can be decided without reference to the nature of the atonement. But when we ponder the issue of the extent of the atonement, in other words, for whom did Christ die, by  Christ's own words, if they carry any weight with us at all, the verdict is quite decisive. Christ uses several expressions in speaking of whom His death is efficacious for and for whom are its effects. Let us adduce five of them here and comment briefly on each.

First, he calls them the many (Matthew 26:28; 20:28). If we study across the scope of Jesus' teaching, we will find that this expression, the many, is used by Him exclusively to refer to those who are His own, a people given to Him. The word many would not be enough to prove the limited extent of the atonement were it not also for the fact that they are described by marks which cannot be applied universally.

In the 17^th century, a dangerous theory was contrived (a fan favorite of the Arminians), which held that when Christ was said to have died for all, this was referring to what had been done to procure redemption, and when He was said to have died for many, or for the Church, it was describing the actual participation of redemption. That this theory is not only false, but also dangerous, can be seen by the fact that our Lord describes the actual offering of the ransom and not just its application.

 

For the rest, see:

 

http://andycontramundum.blogspot.com/2012/01/how-christ-limits-atonement-1.html

 

Parts 2-4 can be found here:

http://andycontramundum.blogspot.com/2012/01/how-christ-limits-atonement-2.html

http://andycontramundum.blogspot.com/2012/02/how-christ-limits-atonement-3.html

http://andycontramundum.blogspot.com/2012/02/how-christ-limits-atonement-4.html

We would add the following:

A fresh reminder, thanks. Sometimes, being old school and somewhat-schooled, one may be inclined to "just forget." These views were accepted, once upon a time, by the Archbishop of Canterbury. As well as the English commissioners to the Synod of Dordt. But, the "Anti-Calvinist" (and Willy Laud hated Calvin) faction stirred much hate and discontent. 

Thanks again for the reminder, but this will go over the heads of the Anglicanobaptacostals as "adiaphora." The Tractarians will just simply pout and object; they are Romanists without the Pope. They are Un-Reformed an Un-Reformable Anglicans.

 

J.H. Kurtz: "Offerings, Sacrifices, and Worship in the Old Testament"

Kurtz, J.H. Offerings, Sacrifices, and Worship in the Old Testament (trans. James Martin). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998.

Available at:

http://www.amazon.com/Offerings-Sacrifices-Worship-Old-Testament/dp/1565633954/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376532149&sr=1-1&keywords=J.+H.+Kurtz+Offerings%2C+Sacrifices%2C+and+Worship+in+the+Old+Testament...

J. H. Kurtz (1809-1890) was a prominent German scholar and church historian. He served as professor of church history and Old Testament at the University of Dorpat.

Did the “slaughtering of expiatory sacrifices have signification of poenia vicaria" is the issue Mr. Kurtz seeks to address. He notes that theologians are “widely separated” (10). We are not sure what the antecedent is to which Mr. Kurtz refers, but we suspect it to be incipient and blossoming liberal theology.

Over 453 pages, Mr. Kurtz constructs Four Books.

Book One: The General Basis of Sacrificial Worship in the Old Testament

1. Persons sacrificing: people and priests
2. Place of sacrifice
3. Various kinds of sacrifice

Book Two: Bleeding Sacrifices

1. Ritual of sacrifices
2. Varieties of bleeding sacrifices: theological and ritual characteristics, similarities and distinctions in sin offerings, burnt offerings, peace offerings, and trespass offerings.

Book Three: Bloodless Sacrifices

1. Material of bloodless sacrifices
2. Minchah of the fore-court
3. Minchah of the Holy Place

Book Four: Modification of Sacrificial Worship in Connection with Special Seasons and Circumstances

1. Consecration of people, priests and Levites
2. Adaptation to special seasons and feasts:
 
a. Mosaic idea of Feast
b. Daily, weekly and monthly sacrifices
c. Passover
d. Pentecost
e. Tabernacle
f. Day of Atonement

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4MKOP-vhQ0

A good hymn for Lent and Holy Communion at any day. We do our bounden duty and offer our "sacrifice of praise, thanksgiving," and our bodies and minds as a "reasonable service and sacrifice" in response to the final, sufficient, abiding, definitive and abidingly valid offering and oblation of Christ for His people. Does anyone suggest less than this love to God and our fellow Churchmen as we kneel together?

1. Ah, holy Jesus, how hast Thou offended,
That man to judge Thee hath in hate pretended?
By foes derided, by Thine own rejected,
O most afflicted.

2. Who was the guilty? Who brought this upon Thee?
Alas, my treason, Jesus, hath undone Thee.
’Twas I, Lord, Jesus, I it was denied Thee!
I crucified Thee.

3. Lo, the Good Shepherd for the sheep is offered;
The slave hath sinned, and the Son hath suffered;
For man’s atonement, while he nothing heedeth,
God intercedeth.

4. For me, kind Jesus, was Thy incarnation,
Thy mortal sorrow, and Thy life’s oblation;
Thy death of anguish and Thy bitter passion,
For my salvation.

5. Therefore, kind Jesus, since I cannot pay Thee,
I do adore Thee, and will ever pray Thee,
Think on Thy pity and Thy love unswerving,
Not my deserving.