by Rexford Semrad | Aug 4, 2017 | Book Reviews, Reformed Theology
part 1
Johnson, Jeffrey. He Died for Me: Limited Atonement & the Universal Gospel. Conway, AR: Free Grace Press, 2017. 201 pp.
Critical Evaluation
There are several helpful aspects to He Died for Me. Readers will be exposed to many statements from respected Reformed theologians of the past that may surprise them. I don’t think most Calvinists in our day realize how frequently universal language has been used in the past, even by trusted Reformed men who strongly adhere to the doctrine of particular redemption. Even the reader who is not persuaded by Johnson’s arguments will be better off for taking the time to think through them. Thinking deeply upon the doctrine of the redemption we have in Jesus Christ will be a blessed consequence of reading this book. The portions of the book in which Johnson deals directly with the issue of the atonement with regard to the elect are particularly edifying.
Idem vs. Tantundem
That being said, I was not persuaded by Johnson’s arguments, and I find that I must take issue with him on a number of points. The first of these is the way he treats idem as quantitative punishment and tantundem as qualitative punishment with regard to the atonement. His use of these two Latin terms seems to me to be quite out of step with their historical meaning, especially with regard to the later of the two. In fact, I cannot understand how the term tantundem can properly mean qualitative at all.
These terms began to be used with reference to the atonement when, in the appendix of one of his books, Richard Baxter took issue with Owen’s Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Owen responded to Baxter with The Death of Christ, the Price He Paid, & the Purchase He made. Earlier, Owen had contended with Hugo Grotius, because Grotius had argued that Christ’s sufferings were tantundem, meaning that the Father had to agree graciously to accept a lesser payment than was actually owed.[1] In the discussion with Baxter, Owen used the terms in this way: “I affirm that he paid idem, that is, the same thing that was in the obligation, and not tantundem, something equivalent thereunto, in another kind.” [2]
The usage of these terms to refer to “the same thing” over against “something equivalent” is present in others as well. Johnson quotes Thomas Manton as saying, “He was to suffer what we were to suffer; if not the idem (quantitative), every way the same, yet the tantundem (qualitative), that which was sufficient to Christ’s ends, that which was to carry a full resemblance with our punishment” (124). The terms in parentheses are added by Johnson, and seem very misleading to me. In the context, Manton is speaking of the desertion of Christ by the Father, and his point is that though Christ cannot be forsaken by God in the same manner as the damned will be, yet he did “suffer so much of it as his holy person was capable of.” [3]
This is actually quite interesting, because whether or not Christ’s suffering is idem or tantundem really depends on how one looks at it. Thomas Brooks also uses the terms to mean the thing itself or something equivalent when he argues that in different respects both idem and tantundem may be affirmed. In respect to the substance, kind or nature of the suffering, it was idem or the same as the sinner should have undergone, for the punishment due to the sinner is death. However, in terms of the duration of it or the desperation going along with it, Christ’s suffering was tantundem, not the same, but equivalent. [4]
While Johnson’s use of tantundem to mean qualitative is troubling, I must also take issue with his understanding of what Owen meant by idem. He states: “By framing the argument in such a way, Owen presumed that the degree of pain and suffering inflicted on Christ was quantitatively measured out by the number of sins of those imputed to His account” (117). He then provides a quote from Owen, that in isolation appears to back up this claim. He seems to be equating Owen’s view with what is sometimes referred to as the commercial view of the atonement, that Christ had to suffer a certain amount for each sin of each of the people for whom He died, so much so that had God elected another man or if one of the elect had committed another sin, He would have had to suffer more.
Johnson should know better than to ascribe such an idea to Owen. He quotes Charles Hodge: “This is not the doctrine of any Church on earth, and never has been” (123). Now Hodge may have been ignorant of some Calvinistic Baptist views, but he was certainly well aware of the views of Owen, Turretin, and Perkins.
By idem, Owen did not mean that Christ suffered “so much for so many” as Hodge put it, but that the wages paid were the very wages owed, for the wages of sin is death. “The idem and very thing threatened in the constitution of the law is death. The terminating of that penalty to the person offending was in the commination, and had it not been relaxed, must have been in the execution; but in the constitution of the obligation, which respects purely the kind of penalty, primarily it was not. ‘Death is the reward of sin,’ is all that is there.”[5] As Carl Trueman explains:
[W]hen responding to Baxter in Of the Death of Christ, Owen makes the point that the penalty required for sin was death. This is an important point: there is a danger when thinking of Christ’s atonement in terms of satisfaction for debt that one can be led astray into thinking in crudely quantitative terms: sin has accumulated x amount of debt; so the penalty is to be paid in terms of x, where x is analogous to money or property. That is not the model with which Owen is operating: the penalty is not quantitative in such a way; rather, it is perhaps better described as qualitative. It is not that Christ has to pile up a heap of suffering to match the offense human beings have given to God; it is that he has to die. Death is the penalty. [6]
So, if what Johnson means when he repeatedly (17, 20, 23, 39, 117, 118, 148, 165, 167, 170) accuses Owen and other high Calvinists of holding a quantitative view of punishment is that they hold some equivalent to the commercial view, he is quite wrong. If that is not what he means by the quantitative view, then I am completely at a loss for what he really means by either a quantitative or qualitative view.
Continued Part 3…
[1] John Owen, The Death of Christ, the Price He Paid, and the Purchase He Made, in The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 10 (1850-1853, reprint, Carlisle: Banner of Truth Trust, 1967), 437.
[2] Ibid., 438
[3] Thomas Manton, The Works of Thomas Manton, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1993), 272.
[4] Thomas Brooks, A Golden Key to Open Hidden Treasures (1675), p. 96. Kindle.
[5] Owen, Death of Christ, 433.
[6] Carl R. Trueman “Atonement and the Covenant of Redemption, John Owen on the Nature of Christ’s Satisfaction,” From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective, eds. David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013), 224.
Rexford Semrad has served as an administrator at Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary since 2015. He is married to his wife of 32 years, Marion, and has 8 children. He is a member of Grace Reformed Baptist Church of Owensboro, KY where he serves as a Deacon and a Gifted Brother. Among other things, Rex particularly enjoys theology, hot sauce and Church history.
by Rexford Semrad | Aug 2, 2017 | Book Reviews, Reformed Theology
Johnson, Jeffrey. He Died for Me: Limited Atonement & the Universal Gospel. Conway, AR: Free Grace Press, 2017. 201 pp.
Introduction
Much to my dismay and disappointment, an old error seems to have taken a new hold of the minds of many Calvinists in recent years: the denial of the free and well-meant offer of the gospel. It is no longer uncommon to hear that God does not desire that every person who hears the proclamation of the gospel should embrace Christ and be saved, or that God’s only purpose in proclaiming the gospel to the reprobate is to harden them and increase their guilt. Such conclusions are required by the doctrine of limited atonement or particular redemption, are they not?
The answer of the Reformed tradition as a whole and of the Canons of Dort in particular to that question is a resounding “No.” But how can we hold firmly to the two seemingly contradictory doctrines of limited atonement and the free and well-meant offer of the gospel? Jeffrey Johnson, a Reformed Baptist pastor in Conway, AR, and author of numerous books, has taken up the noble task of helping his readers understand why these doctrines are not actually contrary to one another and can both be embraced simultaneously.
Summary
Johnson is convinced that the key to understanding these things rightly is found in a proper view of the Lombardian Formula, which states that the death of Christ is both limited in its efficacy and universal in its sufficiency (15). He believes that “High Calvinists” such as Theodore Beza, William Perkins, Francis Turretin and John Owen changed or rejected this formula, and rather than holding to “actual” sufficiency, believed only in “hypothetical” sufficiency. He is convinced that it is critical to reject the “High Calvinist” view for various reasons, and embrace the “Moderate Calvinist” understanding of the sufficiency of the atonement. He also does a very good job discussing “Low Calvinist” or four-point Calvinist views and recognizes some strengths in their arguments, before explaining why they must ultimately be rejected.
According to Johnson, high Calvinists like John Owen hold to an idem or quantitative view of the atonement, along with Hyper-Calvinists, and this must be rejected for a tantundem or qualitative view. This is absolutely essential in order to have an atonement that is actually sufficient for the whole world, and in his opinion, such sufficiency is necessary in order for the offer of the gospel to be well-meant. He asks, “If Christ did not die for the non-elect, are we lying when we command them to believe in the death of Christ for the salvation of their souls? That is, when we preach the gospel to the non-elect, are we offering them a provision that is not there for them to receive?” (135). Johnson’s strongly implied answer to these questions is “yes.”
So how can it be proper to tell all men that Christ died for them if we still hold to the doctrine of limited atonement, as Johnson does? He finds the answer to this question in a unique, three-fold understanding of union with Christ: federal union, organic union, and personal union. Since Christ took true humanity upon Himself, He is therefore in organic union with all humankind. Because this union is with all mankind, and not merely the elect, and because it is a qualitative atonement rather than a quantitative one, “…the price Christ paid to redeem His chosen people” is “a sufficient price to redeem the whole world” (177). He concludes, “Thus, universal sufficiency is secured by Christ’s organic unity with humanity” (177).
While organic unity is his basis for the sufficiency of Christ’s death for all men, federal union is the basis for Christ’s death being effectual only to the elect. The elect were in union with Christ in His death on the cross, their sins were imputed to Him in a qualitative sense, and His death effectually purchased faith for them, and them alone. “This means that what causes the atonement to be efficaciously applied to the elect and not to the non-elect is not anything inherently in the atonement itself. Rather, its efficacy is determined and restricted to those who were already, due to election, in federal union with Christ as He suffered under the wrath of God” (174).
Personal union occurs when the Holy Spirit regenerates the elect and they exercise the faith Christ purchased for them. It is this personal union with Christ in which all the benefits of His death are effectually applied.
I would summarize his argument this way. In order to preach the gospel to all men in sincerity, we must be able to tell all men that Christ died for them. Christ took true human nature upon Himself, therein uniting Himself with all men, and died a qualitative death in that nature. For that reason we can tell all men that Christ died for them. But Christ was uniquely in union with His chosen people in His death, and because of that union, He purchased faith for them. That faith is then exercised in time as the elect are joined to Christ when the Holy Spirit regenerates them and they experience personal union with Him. This is how the Lombardian Formula, that Christ’s death was sufficient for all men but efficient only for the elect, solves our dilemma and enables us to proclaim the gospel in sincerity without denying particular redemption.
A Critical Evaluation begins with part 2.
Rexford Semrad has served as an administrator at Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary since 2015. He is married to his wife of 32 years, Marion, and has 8 children. He is a member of Grace Reformed Baptist Church of Owensboro, KY where he serves as a Deacon and a Gifted Brother. Among other things, Rex particularly enjoys theology, hot sauce and Church history.
by Richard Barcellos | Dec 23, 2010 | Biblical Theology, Hermeneutics, Historical Theology, New Testament, Old Testament
Part I: The Perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant in Owen and Others
Part II: Matthew 5:17 and the Perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant in Owen and Others
Part III: The Multi-functional Utility of the Decalogue in Owen and Others
Part IV: The Idea of Abrogation in Owen and Others
Conclusion
What can we conclude in light of the evidence presented?
· Owen in the context of his own writings
Primary source documentation of Owen has been presented on (1) the perpetuity of the entire Decalogue from Jer. 31:33 and 2 Co. 3:3, (2) Matt. 5:17 as it relates to the perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant, (3) the multi-functional utility of the Decalogue and (4) abrogation. Examining Owen on these subjects put us both into the primary documents themselves and within Owen’s systematic thought on relevant theological issues. This was necessary in order to understand him on the primary issue under investigation.
Owen’s view of abrogation must be carefully qualified, especially as it relates to the Decalogue and the New Covenant. On the one hand, he viewed the Decalogue as abrogated under the New Covenant. But he viewed it abrogated in terms of its function under the Old Covenant and along with the rest of the Old Covenant’s law. His view of the abrogation of the Decalogue was not absolute, but relative. It concerned a specific redemptive-historical function of the Decalogue and not all redemptive-historical functions.
On the other hand, Owen did not view the Decalogue as abrogated under the New Covenant. He viewed it as perpetual because it contains “the sum and substance of that obedience which is due unto God from all rational creatures made in his image.”[1]
These distinctions in his views on abrogation and the various redemptive-historical functions of the Decalogue are in his early and later statements in the Hebrews commentary. It may be difficult for us to understand them, taking them at face value, but once his careful qualifications are taken into account, along with his clear assertions concerning the perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant and the grounds for it, his meaning comes clearly into focus. But if we import into Owen our understanding of what certain statements mean or fail to understand his systematic thought, we are apt to misread him and either force on him something he never intended or force him to contradict himself.
· The historical/theological context in which Owen wrote
Primary source documentation has been presented from Calvin, Ursinus, Witsius, Turretin, Protestant Scholastic thought, and Boston. In doing so, the attempt was made to put Owen in historical and theological context. We found that his views on the matters examined were not novel and fit within the theological nomenclature of his contemporaries. Though what he said may be hard to understand and even appear novel to us, it was not so in his day.
[1] Owen, Works, XXII:215.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
by Richard Barcellos | Dec 16, 2010 | Biblical Theology, Historical Theology, New Testament, Old Testament, Systematic Theology
Part I: The Perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant in Owen and Others
Part II: Matthew 5:17 and the Perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant in Owen and Others
Part III: The Multi-functional Utility of the Decalogue in Owen and Others
Part IV: The Idea of Abrogation in Owen and Others
1. John Owen. Owen teaches that the whole law of Moses (even the moral element) has been abrogated. Commenting on Hebrews 7:18, 19, Owen says:
I have proved before that “the commandment” in this verse [Heb. 7:18] is of equal extent and signification with “the law” in the next. And “the law” there doth evidently intend the whole law, in both the parts of it, moral and ceremonial, as it was given by Moses unto the church of Israel [emphasis added].[1]
Commenting on Hebrews 7:12, Owen says:
It was the whole “law of commandments contained in ordinances,” or the whole law of Moses, so far as it was the rule of worship and obedience unto the church; for that law it is that followeth the fates of the priesthood [emphasis added].[2]
Wherefore the whole law of Moses, as given unto the Jews, whether as used or abused by them, was repugnant unto and inconsistent with the gospel, and the mediation of Christ, especially his priestly office, therein declared; neither did God either design, appoint, or direct that they should be co-existent [emphasis added].[3]
Owen, of course, carefully qualifies what he means by the whole law and its abrogation. Commenting again on Hebrews 7:18, 19, he says:
Nor is it the whole ceremonial law only that is intended by “the command” in this place, but the moral law also [emphasis his], so far as it was compacted with the other into one body of precepts for the same end [emphasis added]; for with respect unto the efficacy of the whole law of Moses, as unto our drawing nigh unto God, it is here considered.[4]
Again, Owen says:
By all these ways was the church of the Hebrews forewarned that the time would come when the whole Mosaical law, as to its legal or covenant efficacy, should be disannulled, unto the unspeakable advantage of the church [emphasis added].[5]
This comes in a section in which Owen is showing how “the whole law may be considered …absolutely in itself” or “with respect …unto the end for which it was given” or “unto the persons unto whom it was given.”[6] He calls the law “the whole system of Mosaical ordinances, as it was the covenant which God made with the people of Horeb. For the apostle takes ‘the commandment,’ and ‘the law’ for the same in this chapter; and ‘the covenant,’ in the next, for the same in them both.”[7] Owen is concentrating on the whole Mosaic law, i.e., it is the law in its totality as it related to God’s Old Covenant people that has been abrogated. Thus the abrogation of the law in Owen refers to the whole law as it functioned in Old Covenant Israel.[8]
2. John Calvin. This understanding of abrogation is found in Calvin also. Calvin taught that the abrogation of the law under the New Covenant in no way abrogates the Decalogue in every sense of the word. Commenting on Rom. 7:2, Calvin says:
…but we must remember, that Paul refers here only to that office of the law which was peculiar to Moses; for as far as God has in the ten commandments taught what is just and right, and given directions for guiding our life, no abrogation of the law is to be dreamt of; for the will of God must stand the same forever. We ought carefully to remember that this is not a release from the righteousness which is taught in the law, but from its rigid requirements, and from the curse which thence follows. The law, then, as a rule of life, is not abrogated; but what belongs to it as opposed to the liberty obtained through Christ, that is, as it requires absolute perfection [emphasis added].[9]
It is important to note that “the term ‘law’ for Calvin may mean (1) the whole religion of Moses…; (2) the special revelation of the moral law to the chosen people, i.e., chiefly the Decalogue and Jesus’ summary…; or (3) various bodies of civil, judicial, and ceremonial statutes.”[10] Calvin says, “I understand by the word ‘law’ not only the Ten Commandments, which set forth a godly and righteous rule of living, but the form of religion handed down by God through Moses.”[11] Calvin views the law in various ways. So when he speaks of abrogation, he does not intend absolute abrogation, but relative abrogation in terms of the law considered not in itself, but in its redemptive-historically conditioned use. Commenting on the concept of abrogation in Calvin, one Calvin scholar said, “the Law was not in itself abrogated by the Christ, but only the slavery and malediction attaching to it under the ancient Covenant.”[12] According to Calvin, therefore, the Moral Law has not been abrogated, as such. What has been abrogated or fulfilled in Christ for believers is its function as a curse. “The law itself is not abolished for the believer, but only the maledictio legis… [F]or Calvin the law is related above all to believers for whom, however, the maledictio is removed.”[13]
3. Zacharias Ursinus. In his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, while discussing the extent that Christ abrogated the law and the extent that it is still in force, Zacharias Ursinus says:
The ordinary and correct answer to this question is, that the ceremonial and judicial law, as given by Moses, has been abrogated in as far as it relates to obedience; and that the moral law has also been abrogated as it respects the curse, but not as it respects obedience [emphasis added].[14]
The moral law has, as it respects one part, been abrogated by Christ; and as it respects another, it has not [emphasis added].[15]
But the moral law, or Decalogue, has not been abrogated in as far as obedience to it is concerned. God continually, no less now than formerly, requires both the regenerate and the unregenerate to render obedience to his law [emphasis added].[16]
4. Francis Turretin. A similar understanding of abrogation is found in Francis Turretin. In volume 2 of his Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Turretin entitles chapter XXIII as follows:
THE ABROGATION OF THE MORAL LAW
XXIII. Whether the moral law is abrogated entirely under the New Testament. Or whether in a certain respect it still pertains to Christians. The former we deny; the latter we affirm against the Antinomians.[17]
Notice Turretin’s careful qualifications (i.e., “entirely” and “in a certain respect”). While discussing the abrogation of the moral law, he says, “In order to apprehend properly the state of the question, we must ascertain in what sense the law may be said to have been abrogated and in what sense not.”[18] Then, after listing three senses in which the law has been abrogated, he says, “But the question only concerns its directive use–whether we are now freed from the direction and observance of the law. This the adversaries maintain; we deny.”[19]
Turretin does what we have seen in others. He has a view of abrogation which both includes the Decalogue and does not include the Decalogue. This is because the law can be viewed from different theological and redemptive-historical vantage points.
5. Protestant Scholasticism. Finally, concerning the lex Mosaica [law of Moses], which, representing the view of Protestant Scholasticism, he defines as the moral law as given to Israel by God in a special revelation to Moses on Mount Sinai, Richard Muller says, “As a norm of obedience belonging to the [covenant of grace], the law remains in force under the economy of the New Testament.”[20] Muller recognizes the fact that Protestant Scholastics considered the law in different ways. Therefore, when we examine their statements about abrogation, we must take this into consideration. If we do not, we may take their statements on the abrogation of the law in an absolute manner and make them mean something they did not.
We have seen that Owen’s view of abrogation was similar to Calvin’s, Ursinus’, Turretin’s, and Protestant Scholasticism’s. With them, he carefully and repeatedly qualifies what he means by abrogation. He stands clearly within Reformed orthodoxy at this point. His view of abrogation neither necessarily demands the elimination of the Decalogue as a unit in all senses under the New Covenant, nor is it contradicted by the inclusion of the Decalogue as a unit under the New Covenant. Though with his own nuances and emphases, Owen’s view is substantially that of others in his day. It was Calvin’s, Ursinus’s, Turretin’s, Protestant Scholasticism’s, as well as that of the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Savoy Declaration, and the 2nd LCF.[21]
From the evidence presented, Owen must be understood to view abrogation as both including and not including the Decalogue, depending on how it is viewed. If this is the case, his understanding of abrogation, though with its own nuances and emphases, has clear and ample precedent in Calvin, Ursinus, Turretin, and Protestant Scholasticism.
[1] Owen, Works, XXI:464.
[2] Owen, Works, XXI:428.
[3] Owen, Works, XXI:429.
[4] Owen, Works, XXI:458.
[5] Owen, Works, XXI:469.
[6] Owen, Works, XXI:466.
[7] Owen, Works, XXI:471.
[8] I defended this view of abrogation in my IDOTD. “Hearty agreement must be given when New Covenant theologians argue for the abolition of the Old Covenant. This is clearly the teaching of the Old and New Testaments (see Jeremiah 31:31-32; Second Corinthians 3; Galatians 3, 4; Ephesians 2:14-15; Hebrews 8-10). The whole law of Moses, as it functioned under the Old Covenant, has been abolished, including the Ten Commandments. Not one jot or tittle of the law of Moses functions as Old Covenant law anymore and to act as if it does constitutes redemptive-historical retreat and neo-Judaizing. However, to acknowledge that the law of Moses no longer functions as Old Covenant law is not to accept that it no longer functions; it simply no longer functions as Old Covenant law. This can be seen by the fact that the New Testament teaches both the abrogation of the law of the Old Covenant and its abiding moral validity under the New Covenant.” See Barcellos, IDOTD, 61.
[9] John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, re. 1984), IXX:246.
[10] Calvin, Institutes, II.vii, n. 1.
[11] Calvin, Institutes, II.vii.1.
[12] Hesselink, Calvin’s Concept, 203.
[13] Hesselink, Calvin’s Concept, 256.
[14] Ursinus, Commentary, 492.
[15] Ursinus, Commentary, 495.
[16] Ursinus, Commentary, 496.
[17] Turretin, Institutes, II:ix.
[18] Turretin, Institutes, II:141.
[19] Turretin, Institutes, II:141, 42.
[20] Muller, Dictionary, 174.
[21] See chapters 4 and 19 of these Confessions.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
