A concise and helpful new book on a controversial issue:
Lee Gatiss. For Us and For Our Salvation: “Limited Atonement” in the Bible, Doctrine, History, and Ministry. London: Latimer Trust, 2012. 134 pp.
It’s endorsed by J. I. Packer, Carl Trueman, Mark D. Thompson, Alec Motyer, D. A. Carson, Julian Hardyman, Michael S. Horton, and David Instone-Brewer. Here’s what D. A. Carson says about it:
The last thing Lee Gatiss wants to accomplish by this short book is to renew theological conflict characterized by more heat than light. Rather, Gatiss makes his case patiently, respectfully, firmly—beginning with Scripture, traversing historical and systematic theology, and ending with pastoral reflections. Those who disagree will find themselves much better informed; those who are sympathetic to the argument and who understand the biblical and theological connections between definite atonement and penal substitution will rejoice to see the case freshly made. After all, it draws believers to the foot of the cross in humility and stunned awe before the Redeemer whose perfect obedience accomplished the wise and gracious plan of our Creator and Judge. While he works through the details of text and logic, Gatiss does not lose sight of the massive and central place of the cross in the panoramic biblical display of God’s redemptive purposes.
Related:
It’s not a page turner but cogently argued. I like the way he tied together the scope of the work of the atonement with Christ paying the penalty for our sins.
Hi Andy, Do you know when Gatiss claims limited atonement was first taught in church history?
Greg – Gatiss claims the questions to which “limited atonement” is supposedly the answer are thrown up by scripture itself. But also that they have been discussed ever since then. Significant moments when discussion of the relationship between election and atonement have led to theological and exegetical moves towards what we might now call “limited atonement” would certainly include Augustine’s arguments with the Pelagians, Gottschalk’s teaching against Hincmar, and Arminius’ criticisms of Gomarus and others. But if you mean, when did someone first give this thing the name “limited atonement”, Gatiss claims that it was probably in the early 19th century (see pages 14-15, or look up Harry Potter in the Index).
Harvey – Gatiss promises to try and throw more jokes in next time! (Though, did you spot the Harry Potter one?) He’s also open to suggestions about how to make “limited atonement” sexier, for a modern audience! :)
Thanks for your comments and questions!
You may not have found it a page turner, but I had great fun writing it. Especially with the acronyms. Did you not giggle at PIE (page 14)? And CHUB (page 95)? And there’s a (deliberate) PEEP acronym hidden in there somewhere too, if you have eyes to see it (page 36). Perhaps I was being too subtle for an American audience…
Seriously though, it’s intended to be an irenic book, not too black and white, but there aren’t 50 Shades of Grey in it (HT: a recent so-called “page turner”). But I did throw in a love story with a tragic ending (page 28), not to mention the intimate marital revelation of page 37. I could have made more of the “pistols at dawn” duel over limited atonement on page 78 though.
Hi Lee and Andy:
I plan to purchase Lee’s book when space clears on my reading list. In the meantime, do you address the interpretation of 2 Peter 2:1? This passage seems to be always raised by ‘non-definite atonement’ folk to disprove definite atonement. I am aware of Grudem’s interpretation from a blog post at Desiring God, but perhaps you have something original. My novice way of handling the verse is to distinguish its use of ‘agorazo’ from the other NT occurences of that word which, from the textual context, clearly or at least more clearly refer to saved individuals, such as 1 Cor. 6:20. But I guess that might only leave me with what the verse doesn’t mean, not what it does mean. Many thanks.
Whether my interpretation of 2 Peter 2:1 is fresh and new or not, is up to you to tell me, Chris. But you’re right, it is often cited against limited atonement, and I do deal with that (c. pages 54-55).
I would like to read the book. For years I’ve been rooted in Calvinistic teaching, I believed in the 5 points of Calvinism. I have just this one problem with the atonement being limited to the elect. If when Jesus died he died only for the elect this means there can be no universal offer. If this sacrifice was exclusive to the names which are written in the lambs book then it is a useless practice to have an offer to preconverted persons to receive grace. Plus ”world” in john has universal implications in most its usages.
Thanks for your interaction, Erick.
There’s only no “universal offer” with limited atonement if a) we disobey the clear teaching of scripture and b) we know who the elect are to whom alone we should offer salvation. Since we don’t want to do a) and we simply don’t know b), then we should just get on with it (in my view!).
Interesting little aside about John’s Gospel. I presume you mean John 3:16, “God so loved the world…”? I make a case in my book that John 3:16 actually says nothing at all about limited or unlimited atonement. It simply isn’t about that. It’s irrelevant to the argument. Calvinists think God loves the world! But that doesn’t mean Jesus was sent to die equally for every single person in the world. That’s an unwarranted logic imposition onto what the text actually says. It says God so loved the rebellious, God-hating world that he provided a way for rebellious sinners to be saved through Christ. Anyone who believes in him will not perish. He is given to the world in such a way that everyone who believes is saved. Read more on pages 47-49 of the book…
Thank you for responding.
I understand your argument. I think it is another way to simply prove Calvinism. Even if john 3:16 is not answering any atonement question, it still insists the God loves the world in terms of giving His son. The world is that which was made in the beginning and which loved darkness. In other words the word world really does consist of human creatures That God has made and that are living in darkness. The whosoever implies that all which live in darkness are subject to the loveof verse 16
I view Jesus death in terms of a new Adam theology where his identification with our human race and his death provide an outlet through which any man can participate into the new creation. God of course only applies the elect through this outlet.