This book was really a love/hate relationship. I also knew that this would probably be the case heading into me reading it though as well. It is really 4 essays about the atonement of Christ. I found 3 of 4 to be very good and the one I figured I would find lacking is exactly the one that was lacking.
Here are the four different essays:
The Heart of the Gospel (J.I. Packer; taken from chapter 18 of Knowing God; 1973)
This is really a longer intro to the book as a whole. It speaks of the different aspects of the cross, such as propitiation, God's love, expiation, substitution and God's glory.
What Did the Cross Achieve? The Logic of Penal Substitution (J.I. Packer; first appeared in Tyndale Bulletin; 1974)
This is really a defense of understanding both words used here, penal and substitution. Packer does a very good job in rendering that logic can only take someone so far before they have to bow the knee to the omnipotent and omniscient God. He does a good job in the defense of the use of the term, "Penal Substitution." I very much liked this chapter even though it was a very tough read to get through.
Nothing But the Blood (Mark Dever; Reprint from Christianity Today; 2006)
This was very short and really marked a way for the modern reader to try and understand why we still need to make sure we speak of the bloody atonement. Why it was necessary and why it still is necessary as far as our focus within God's love. I liked this short article, although I found some of it to be repetitive to Packer's What did the Cross Achieve.
Saved by His Precious Blood: An Introduction to John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. (J.I. Packer; 1958)
This chapter I really didn't like. I found that the work of Owen was really put up on a pedestal and said many times that there was no way for it to be refuted. This seems like words that should only be held up to the light of Scripture, not to a man's work with no inspiration of the Holy Spirit. J.I. Packer defends the understanding of a strict view of limited atonement in this article and says that those who don't believe in this view are not preaching the gospel. He says that preaching limited atonement is the biblical gospel, that if you preach otherwise you are preaching self esteem, that those who don't preach a strict view of the atonement are just trying to helpful to man and not concerned with the glory of God.
I still can't believe that he says some of this stuff. So, if I don't hold to a strict view of the atonement I don't preach the biblical gospel, I preach self esteem and are little concerned with the glory of God?
What I find interesting is that this comes after a quote in this very book by Martin Luther where Luther preaches an atonement that is more than limited, or particular. This is found on page 85 in the footnotes:
All the prophets did foresee in spirit, that Christ should become the greatest transgressor, murderer, adulterer, thief, rebel, blasphemer, etc. that ever was....for he being made a sacrifice, for the sins of the whole world, is not now an innocent person and without sins....Our most merciful Father...sent his only Son into the world and laid upon him the sins of all men, saying: Be thou Peter that denier; Paul that persecutor, blashphemer and cruel oppressor; David that adulterer; that sinner which did eat the apple in Paradise; that thief which hanged on the cross; and, briefly, be thou person which hath committed the sins of all men; see therefore that thou pay and satisfy for them. Here now cometh the law and saith: I find him a sinner...therefore let him die upon the cross.
Martin Luther(found at Galatians, ed. Philip S. Watson (London: James Clarke, 1953), 269-271; on Gal 3:13)
Notice there is not the particular in view here. But the understanding of the sins being laid on the Messiah and not of just some, but of the whole world. And Luther continues and says that Christ be thou person which hath committed the sins of all men.
I just really found this work to be lacking and very over the top with such arrogance in the understanding of the atonement. Although, I do believe that Christ did die for the whole world, he also died specifically, or especially, for the elect. So, it is a both/and statement in regard to the atonement, not an either/or.
I just find it funny that Packer has his arrogant statements in this book right after he quotes Luther saying just the opposite of what Packer would like him to say.
So, this book is a quandary for me. The first three-fourths of the book was very well done, but the last chapter on the Death of Death by Owen was just terrible. So, I am not sure what I would do with this book besides tell others to read it with caution, but shouldn't we do that with every book we read? Recommended (with caution)
3 comments:
Poor Seth,
Perhaps it will help you get it if I compare Sproul's remarks on how theology proper is the most distinctive thing about Reformed theology even though the theology proper of Reformed theology is identical to all other orthodox Protestant theologies proper.
The way theology proper is distinct in Reformed theology is the fact that every other aspect of systematic theology is considered with specific reference to the attributes of God. This is the way Reformed theology remains consistently theocentric, as opposed to all other orthodox Protestant systematic theologies which give way to anthropocentrism in one way or the other.
It may feel like a harsh remark, especially when one is on the receiving end of it, but this is the route the logic takes when one wants to be consistently God-centered and to close off all detours into man-centeredness. It's naturally repugnant to fallen humanity, because not only rank Arminians and Lutherans and Roman Catholics, but also those who would like to believe they are Reformed are natural-born Pelagians.
Another thought,
Regarding your view of the atonement as both general and particular, rather than either general or particular, I must remind you that the extent that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (as John put it) is that he is the only propitiation available to the whole world. All must come to Christ through faith in his propitiatory sacrifice to the Father, or they are justly condemned. In that sense he is their propitiation, but when the reprobate refuse them out of their own fallen hearts, they deserve the condemnation they receive. If I can think of a third way to repeat the same thing, I'll post it later (just kidding).
If Christ actually did propitiate the Father on behalf of the reprobate then they wouldn't be the reprobate but the elect, and thus universal salvation would be true. But in keeping the atonement of Christ God-centered (ala my previous post), one must realize that there are consequences to the fact that Christ's atonement wasn't a hypothetical atonement of everyone, and that consequence is that he didn't actually propitiate the reprobate, but from the human perspective, he's the only propitiation available to all who believe, and that's why we must preach the gospel to every creature, even the reprobate, because we don't know which are the elect and which are the reprobate. We must command all to repent and trust the propitiation of God through Christ as God's agents in not only saving the elect, but in confirming the justice of God's condemnation of the reprobate.
Thus, limited atonement is the truly God-centered gospel, and general atonement is a man-centered gospel.
John.
Can you copy these over to Contend? We'll get better discussion over there and I will answer your questions more thoroughly.
Your arguments have many holes and would love to discuss with you.
But I must ask, you said this:
but also those who would like to believe they are Reformed are natural-born Pelagians
We might have some issues if you think that if I believe in a unlimited/limited view that I am a Semi-Pelagian.
Because you would also be calling Calvin, Luther and Edwards the same thing.
Let's talk over at contend...it is just easier. And over at contend I gave some helpful links to look at as well in regards to some of your thoughts.
Post a Comment