Limited Atonement: A Mere Logical Deduction?

In studying the Reformed doctrine of limited (or particular) atonement, I turned to A Theology for the Church, ed. Daniel L. Akin (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2007) in order to see how my Baptist brothers dealt with this doctrine. Dr. Paige Patterson, who articulates an Amyraldian view of the atonement in his chapter "The Work of Christ," critiques the Reformed doctrine of limited atonement by simply stating,

"The idea of an atonement limited only to the elect is a concept that belongs to a logical system" (585-6).

In presenting John Owen's exegetical view of the doctrine of limited atonement, Carl R. Trueman responds to charges such as this. He writes,

It is important to make this point at the start, because there are many who see limited atonement as a mere logical deduction from the doctrine of election and reprobation. That is far too simplistic a way of looking at it, because there is considerable exegesis underlying the notion of limited atonement and a great deal of sophisticated reflection upon the connections between Old Testament and New Testament in the development of the concept. Thus, to disagree with limited atonement you must disagree with the exegesis that underlies it and reject the understanding of the relationship between Old Testament types and New Testament antitypes. You should not dismiss limited atonement as a naïve, overly logical deduction from [the] doctrine of election, because that simply is not the case." [Carl R. Trueman. "Post-Reformation Developments in the Doctrine of the Atonement," in Precious Blood: The Atoning Work of Christ, ed. Richard D. Phillips (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2009), 197-8.]

Three classic studies on the atonement which include detailed exegetical work on the subject of the extent of the atonement are:

1. John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955 [reprinted in 1984]. 
2. Leon Morris, The Atonement. Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1983. 
3. John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1983. 

Limited Atonement: A Mere Logical Deduction?

Trueman on Bonhoeffer and Anonymous Evangelicals

The last two sentences of Trueman's short post are extremely helpful!!!! I've been criticized for reading Bonhoeffer, and other, and this is how I've tried to explain my interest in occasionally reading those who's theology differs at points from my own.

Trueman says it well: "Sometimes the problem derives from us asking a fundamentally wrong-headed question. Of more value than `Was he an evangelical?' is surely `How can I learn from him how better to be a Christian?'"

I'm sure that some folks will find a reason to criticize even Trueman's posture towards reading non-evangelical theologians, but I believe that there is wisdom in this perspective.

BTW, I recently received a copy of Mataxes' biography of Bonhoeffer and would love to dig into, but I just began a new seminary class (with RTS) and all of my general reading is going to have to take a back seat to Berkhof, Calvin, and Murray.

Trueman on Bonhoeffer and Anonymous Evangelicals

Pastoral Counseling Begins in the Pulpit

The January edition of New Horizons (published by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church) includes an excellent article titled "The Therapy of the Word" by Carl Trueman.  Years ago, I was taught that pastoral counseling begins in the pulpit.  I've recognized this to be true and do my best to keep this in mind whenever I preach.  Trueman asks a question I believe needs to be considered by the modern church:

...95 percent of the problems addressed by counseling should actually be addressed and solved by simply proclaiming the perennial Word of God.  Is it perhaps the case that fewer people would need counseling if more people actually listened prayerfully to what their pastors were telling them from the pulpit every Sunday morning? (emphasis mine)

Keep in mind, the emphasis here is not on the pastor but on the Word of God!  However, this does imply that Christian counseling is a pastoral function, right?

I agree with Trueman that there is a definite place for counseling outside of the pulpit.  That said, we need to remember that pastoral counseling begins in the pulpit, and that all out-of-pulpit counseling ought to direct the counselee(s) back to the ministry of the Word from the pulpit.

Pastoral Counseling Begins in the Pulpit

Trueman on Reading Barth

Carl Trueman has some interesting pointers on reading Barth. I'm still learning about Barth and this past year has been the first time I've ever read anything by or about him. It is a challenge and I enjoy challenges. If you are unfamiliar with Barth, I think that these comments will be helpful to you.

Read this article: Barth (posted by Carl Trueman)
Followed up by: More on KB

HT: Sean Michael Lucas
**Sean Lucas has his own post on Barth (Karl Barth, Evangelicals, and Dealing with Others) which struck up an interesting series of comments which may also be worth your time--if you are interested in learning more about Barth and Evangelical/Fundamentalist responses to his theology.

I've listened to Van Til's lectures on Barth and was helped by them. You can find them at the following locations:

• Part 1-Karl Barth
• Part 2-Karl Barth

Finally, the first book I read about Karl Barth is the volume on his life and theology in the Armchair Theologian series by WJK Press.

Franke, John R. Barth for Armchair Theologians. Illustrated by Ron Hill. WJK Press, 2006. Paperback, 192 pages.

This is an enjoyable, easy-to-read biography/introduction to the thought and writings of Karl Barth. I appreciated it most because I enjoy studying church history, and this was written with this sort of a reader in mind. Franke does a fine job simplifying the story of Barth from early childhood to his brief pastorate to his career as a professor of theology. In introducing the works of Barth, Franke continues to keep it simple because there "frankly" isn't enough room in the volume to deal with anything in length. However, he surveys some of the most helpful works that deal with Barth's writings, especially the massive CD. Comparing this work to some of the other biographies of Barth that I have, this is an ideal place for a beginner to start.

Ben Meyers (Faith & Theology) reviewed this book here: John Franke: Barth for armchair theologians

Trueman on Reading Barth

John Owen's Attitude Toward the Biblical Languages

This evening I picked up my copy of John Owen: The Man and His Theology edited by Robert W. Oliver (Evangelical Press/P&R Publishing, 2002) in order to compare it to Carl Trueman's John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man (Ashgate, 2007). I had forgotten I had this little volume but was glad to find a chapter by Carl R. Trueman entitled "John Owen the Theologian".

In this chapter I found the following quote regarding Owen's attitude toward the biblical languages:

From its very inception at the hands of Martin Luther, Protestant education had placed knowledge of the biblical languages at the very heart of its theological and ministerial training. This was for the very simple reason that Protestantism, with its high view of the unique nature and authority of the biblical canon, inevitably demanded that its leaders be acquainted with the texts of that canon in their original languages. To have failed in this area would thus have made a practical nonsense of the theological commitment to the scriptural authority. Owen himself gives four reasons why knowledge of the languages is to be desired among those who seek to lead the church: divine inspiration refers to the original texts, not translations; every jot, tittle and subtlety of the original is therefore of great importance; the emphasis and texture of the originals are lost or obscured in translation; and the idiomatic nature of scriptural language requires broad familiarity with cognate literature in the original languages. In other words, the minister or theologian would ideally not have just grasped the rudiments o Hebrew and Greek but should also have a profound understanding of the languages and the cultures from which they arose. To put it bluntly, Protestant commitment to the notion of sola scriptura required nothing less than the training of ministers in the solid, classical traditions of linguistic excellence. (47-48)

Speaking of becoming acquainted with primary sources, I found the following passage by John Owen in Volume IV of his collected works:

This only I say, that it is of singular advantage, in the interpretation of the Scripture, that a man be well acquainted with the original languages, and be able to examine the use and signification of words, phrases, and expressions as they are applied and declared in other authors. And even to the understanding of the Greek of the New Testament it is necessary that a man have an acquaintance with the Hebrew of the Old...

By these things great advantage may be obtained unto the right understanding of the sense of the Scripture, or the mind of the Holy Ghost therein; for there is no other sense in it than what is contained in the words whereof materially it doth consist, though really that sense itself be such as our minds cannot receive without the especial divine assistance before pleaded. And in the interpretation of the mind of any one, it is necessary that the words he speaks or writes be rightly understood; and this we cannot do immediately unless we understand the language wherein he speaks, as also the idiotisms of that language, with the common use and intention of its phraseology and expressions. And if we do not hereby come unto a perfect comprehension of the sense intended, because many other things are required thereunto, yet a hinderance is removed, without which we cannot do so; occasions of manifold mistakes are taken away, and the cabinet is as it were unlocked wherein the jewel of truth lies hid, which with a lawful diligent search may be found. And what perplexities, mistakes, and errors, the ignorance of these original languages hath cast many expositors into, both of old and of late, especially among those who pertinaciously adhere unto one translation, and that none of the best, might be manifested by instances undeniable, and these without number. ... And those among ourselves who are less skilled in this knowledge are to be advised that they would be careful not to adventure on any singular exposition of the Scriptures, or any text in them, upon the credit of any one or all translations they can make use of, seeing persons of greater name and worth than to be mentioned unto their disreputation have miscarried upon the same account. A reverential subjection of mind, and diligent attendance unto the analogy of faith, are their best preservative in this matter; and I fear not to add, that a superficial knowledge in these tongues, which many aim at, is of little use unless it be to make men adventurous in betraying their own ignorance. But the sense and substance of the Scripture being contained entirely in every good translation (amongst which that in use among ourselves is excellent, though capable of great improvements), men may, by the use of the means before directed unto, and under the conduct of the teaching of the Spirit of God in them, usefully and rightly expound the Scripture in general unto the edification of others; whereof many instances may be given amongst ancient and modern expositors.

This skill and knowledge, therefore, is of great use unto them who are called unto the interpretation of the Scripture; and the church of God hath had no small advantage by the endeavors of men learned herein, who have exercised it in the exposition of the words and phraseology of the Scriptures, as compared with their use in other authors. But yet, as was before observed, this skill, and the exercise of it in the way mentioned, is no duty in itself, nor enjoined unto any for its own sake, but only hath a goodness in it with respect unto a certain end. Wherefore, it is in its own nature indifferent, and in its utmost improvement capable of abuse, and such in late days it hath fallen under unto a great extremity; for the study of the ordinal languages, and the exercise of skill in them in the interpretation of the Scripture, hath been of great reputation, and that deservedly. Hence multitudes of learned men have engaged themselves in that work and study, and the number of annotations and comments on the Scripture, consisting principally in critical observations, as they are called, have been greatly increased; and they are utter strangers unto these things who will not allow that many of them are of singular use. But withal this skill and faculty, where it hath been unaccompanied with that humility, sobriety, reverence of the Author of the Scripture, and respect unto the analogy of faith, which ought to bear sway in the minds of all men who undertake to expound the oracles of God, may be, and hath been, greatly abused, unto the hurt of its owners and disadvantage of the church.

(John Owen. The Works of John Owen, volume 4: The Reason of Faith. Edited by William H. Goold. Albany, OR: Books for the Ages, Version 1.o, 2000. pp. 270-72.)

John Owen's Attitude Toward the Biblical Languages