Category: Book Excerpts

John Piper on Limited Atonement

~ Bob Hayton ~ 10 Comments

In reading through Bloodlines: Race, Cross and the Christian by John Piper (Crossway, 2011), I came across a section where Piper clearly explains his view of “limited atonement”. He says something to this effect elsewhere, I believe, but the section as found in this book is very helpful. I recommend Piper’s booklet length explanation of the five points of Calvinism as perhaps the best introduction to Reformed theology available for a layperson. His booklet was very instrumental in my conversion to a Reformed viewpoint.

Anyway, what follows is most of Piper’s explanation and defense of “limited atonement” from Bloodlines, his latest book:

————————————-

Hand in glove with the doctrine of our disabling depravity is the doc­trine of God’s effective purchase of his people on the cross. The reason it’s like hand and glove is that our inability because of sin calls for a kind of redemption that does more than offer us a forgiveness we don’t have the ability to receive. Rather, it calls for a redemption that effectively purchases not only our forgiveness but also our willingness to receive it. In other words, the unwilling glove of depravity calls for the insertion of a powerful hand of ability-giving redemption.

Sometimes this doctrine is called “limited atonement.” It’s not a helpful term. Better would be the terms definite atonement or particular redemption. The reason limited atonement isn’t helpful is that, in fact, the doctrine affirms more, not less, about Christ’s work in redemption than its rival view called “unlimited atonement.”

The view of unlimited atonement takes all the passages that say the death of Christ is “for us” (Rom. 5:8; 1 Thess. 5:10), or for his own “sheep” (John 10:11, 15), or for “the church” (Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25), or for “the children of God” (John 11:52), or for “those who are being sanctified” (Heb. 10:14) and makes them refer to all human beings. In this “unlimited atonement” view, the sentence “Christ died for you” means: Christ died for all sinners, so that if you will repent and believe in Christ, then the death of Jesus will become effective in your case and will take away your sins.

Now as far as it goes, this seems to me to be biblical teaching— salvation is offered to all because of Christ. But then this view denies something that I think the Bible teaches. It denies that Christ died for his church—his bride (Eph. 5:25)—in any way different from the way he died for unbelievers who never come to faith.

There is no dispute that Christ died to obtain great saving benefits for all who believe. Moreover, I have no dispute with saying that Christ died so that we might say to all persons everywhere without exception: “God gave his only begotten Son to die for sin so that if you believe on him you will have eternal life.”

The dispute rather is whether God intended for the death of Christ to obtain more than these two things—more than (1) saving benefits after faith, and (2) a bona fide offer of blood-bought salvation to every person on the planet. Specifically, did God intend for the death of Christ to obtain the free gift of faith (Eph. 2:8) and repentance (2 Tim. 2:25)? Did the blood of Jesus obtain not only the benefits that come after faith but also the gift of faith itself?

We want to be biblical. Does the unlimited atonement interpretation of any of the “universal” texts on the atonement necessarily contra­dict this more that I am affirming about God’s intention for the death of Christ—texts like John 1:29; 2 Corinthians 5:19; 1 Timothy 2:6; Hebrews 2:9; 2 Peter 2:1; and 1 John 2:1–2?

I don’t think so…

…The fact that God makes salvation possible for all through the blood of Christ does not contradict the view that God does more than that through the death of Christ. I don’t affirm that God does less but that he does more. He actually secures the salvation of his chosen people. He secures all the grace needed for their salvation, including the grace of regeneration and faith.

Paul says in Ephesians 5:25, “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” This was a particular redemption. Christ had his bride in view differently than he had all in view. He knew his bride, and he wanted his bride, and he bought his bride. Jesus says, “I lay down my life for the sheep” (John 10:15). He said, “I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you [Father] have given me, for they are yours” (John 17:9). He said, “And for their sake I consecrate myself [to die], that they also may be sanctified in truth” (John 17:19). In other words, Christ had a specific design in his death for the sake of his people—the cross would be sufficient for the salvation of the world, but efficient for his sheep, his bride.

And Paul carried through this understanding of Christ’s work when he said in Romans 8:32–33, “He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect?” God’s elect in verse 33 are the same as the “us all” in verse 32. This group, he says, will most surely receive “all things.” God will see to it. And the reason Paul gives is that Christ did not spare his own Son but gave him up “for us all.” That means that the giving of the Son guarantees all the blessings of the elect.

This does not limit the extent of what the atonement offers. The benefits of the atonement are offered to everyone. If you believe on Christ, they are all yours. But “the Lord knows those who are his” (2 Tim. 2:19). For them, for his bride, he is securing something that can­not fail—their faith and their justification and their glorification. Those for whom he died, in this fullest sense, will most certainly obtain all things—they will finally inherit the kingdom of God. His death is infal­libly effective for the elect.

–pg. 136-138, Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian by John Piper (Crossway, 2011)

You can pick up a copy of this book at any of the following online retailers: Westminster Bookstore, Monergism Books, Christianbook.com, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or direct from Crossway.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Crossway Books for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Martin Luther King Jr. Speaks from a Birmingham Jail

~ Bob Hayton ~ 8 Comments

This Martin Luther King Day, I thought it would be appropriate to offer an excerpt from John Piper’s new book on race that I have been reading. The book is entitled, Bloodlines: Race, Cross and the Christian (Crossway, 2011).

In the introduction to the book, Piper quotes from Martin Luther King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” because this letter “provides a window on the mid-twentieth century world of black Americans.” For those of us who didn’t live through the 1960s and the Civil Rights movement, this excerpt should help us better appreciate the significance of MLK day. I also hope it serves to make us all the more aware of the deceitful sin of racism and ever more resolved to root it out of our lives and our families, communities, and churches.

————————————-

On Tuesday, April 16, King was shown a copy of the Birmingham News, which contained a letter from eight Christian and Jewish clergyman of Alabama (all white), criticizing King for his demonstration. In response, King wrote what has come to be called “Letter from Birmingham Jail” and which one biographer described as “the most eloquent and learned expression of the goals and philosophy of the nonviolent movement ever written.”

We need to hear the power and insight with which King spoke to my generation in the sixties–enraging thousands and inspiring thousands. The white clergy had all said he should be more patient, wait, and not demonstrate. He wrote:

Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, “Wait.” But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick, and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your 20 million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society;

…when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she cannot go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she’s told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people;

…when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking, “Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?”; when you take a cross-country drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging sings reading “white” and “colored”; when your first name becomes “Nigger,” your middle name becomes “Boy” (however old you are) and your last name becomes “John,” and your wife and mother are never given the respected title “Mrs.”;

…when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of “nobodiness”–then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.”

To the charge that he was an extremist, he responded like this:

Was not Jesus an extremist for love: “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you”? Was not Amos an extremist for justice: “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream”? Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: “I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus”?

Was not Martin Luther an extremist: “Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God”? And John Bunyan: “I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience.” And Abraham Lincoln: “Thus this nation cannot survive half slave and half free.” And Thomas Jefferson: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” So the question is not whether we will be extremist, but what kind of extremist we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love?

And finally he delivered a powerful call to the church, which rings as true today as it did in 1963:

There was a time when the church was very powerful–in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society…. But the judgment of God is upon the church [today] as never before. If today’s church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the 20th century.

That is Martin Luther King’s prophetic voice ringing out of the Birmingham jail in 1963. [pg. 25-27]

————————————-

For more on John Piper’s book watch the book trailer, the full 18 minute documentary video, or view the links below. To read King’s entire “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” click here for the letter in .pdf format.

You can pick up a copy of this book at any of the following online retailers: Westminster Bookstore, Monergism Books, Christianbook.com, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or direct from Crossway.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Crossway Books for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Puritan Jeremiah Burroughs on “What Is the Gospel?”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

I’m reading through A Life of Gospel Peace: A Biography of Jeremiah Burroughs by Phillip L. Simpson, recently published by Reformation Heritage Books. This is actually the first full-length biography written about the Puritan preacher Jeremiah Burroughs. Burroughs is perhaps most remembered for his book The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment.

Simpson points out that Burroughs’s preaching was noted for its gospel-centeredness. Six of his books were published posthumously with the word “gospel” in their title (i.e., Gospel Fear, Gospel Remission, and Gospel Reconciliation). Burroughs took the time to respond to the question “What is the gospel?” in his work Gospel Conversation (originally a series of sermons preached in 1646).

I wanted to post Burroughs’s thoughts on the Gospel here for my readers as I found them particularly helpful. As we get ready for a new year, this celebration of the Gospel may serve to orient our thinking and shape our priorities. Having been blessed with this glorious Gospel, may we be encouraged to serve Christ more faithfully in 2012.

————————————-

In response to the question, “What is the gospel?” [Burroughs] said:

“It is the good tidings that God has revealed concerning Christ…. All mankind was lost in Adam and became the children of wrath, and was put under the sentence of death. God, though He left His fallen angels and has reserved them in the chains of eternal darkness, has… provided a way of atonement to reconcile them to Himself again. Namely, the Second Person in the Trinity takes man’s nature upon Him and becomes the Head of a second covenant, standing charged with man’s sin, and answering for it by suffering what the Law and Divine Justice required. He made satisfaction and kept the Law perfectly, which satisfaction and righteousness He offered up unto the Father as a sweet savor of rest for the souls of those that are given to Him.

“And now this mediation of Christ is, by the appointment of the Father, preached to the children of men, of whatever nation or rank, freely offering this unto sinners for atonement for them, requiring them to believe in Him and, upon believing, promising not only a discharge of all their former sins, but that they shall not enter into condemnation, that none of their sins or unworthiness shall ever hinder the peace of God with them, but that they shall, through Him, be received into the number of sons. They shall have the image of God renewed again in them, and they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation. These souls and bodies shall be raised to the height of glory that such creatures are capable of. They shall live forever, enjoying the presence of God and Christ in the fullness of all good. This is the gospel of Christ.” [pg. 151-152]

————————————-

You can pick up a copy of this book at any of the following online retailers: Westminster Bookstore, Christianbook.com, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or direct from Reformation Heritage.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Reformation Heritage Books for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Romanticism and “The Authorized Version”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

Lately, I’ve been reading a fascinating work on the King James Bible produced by Baylor University Press. The King James Bible and the World It Made edited by David Lyle Jeffrey includes contributions from Mark Noll, Alister McGrath, Lamin Sanneh, David Bebbington, Robert Altar, Philip Jenkins, Laura Knoppers and others. The book is a collection of essays reflecting on the legacy of the King James Bible. But these essays are a cut above the typical book touting the King James on its 400th Anniversary. Many of the essays offer profound historical insights and analysis on the King James Bible.

David Bebbington, professor of History at the University of Stirling, Scotland, pointed out the fact that the King James Version was not always known as “The Authorized Version.” The title was first applied to the King James Version in 1805 by the newly created British and Foreign Bible Society.

The following conclusion to Bebbington’s chapter, captures his contention that “the enthusiasm for the translation of 1611 rose and fell with the growth and decay of Romantic sensibility.”

————————————-

Over the previous two and a half centuries, the King James Bible had passed through a striking trajectory. In the middle years of the eighteenth century, the version was generally used but not especially respected. Its status rose from the last years of the century onwards as a taste for the past developed, the translation became identified with national feeling, the British and Foreign Bible Society circulated it, and the title the “Authorized Version” emerged. Criticism of the defects of the translation nevertheless created a demand for revision, but both the practice of the revisers and the reaction of the public confirmed the high esteem enjoyed by the King James Version. Appreciation by a wide cross section of the population culminated in the celebrations of 1911, when it was hailed as a marvel of religion and literature alike. The English Bible, it was generally held around that date, was the foundation of national greatness. Dissenting voices came from critical scholars, Roman Catholics, devotees of Tyndale, and increasingly from those within the churches who thought the cult of the Bible as literature was obscuring its spiritual value. The result was the plethora of new translations which gradually eclipsed the Authorized Version during the later twentieth century. The rearguard defense of the older Bible was mounted by intellectuals concerned for its cultural role and conservative evangelicals bolstering their doctrinal position. The former were rather more salient than the latter by 2011. The changing estimate of the King James Bible was clearly bound up with the whole history of Britain during the period, political as well as ecclesiastical, social as well as intellectual, but the key explanation for the trajectory was identified by both C.S. Lewis and Ronald Knox. The two men pointed out that the enthusiasm for the translation of 1611 rose and fell with the growth and decay of Romantic sensibility. A “taste for the primitive and the passionate,” as Lewis called it, flourished in Britain during the nineteenth and much of the twentieth centuries, but was superseded in the later twentieth century by other attitudes that have been variously labelled “expressivist,” “postmodernist,” or simply “anti-Romantic.” The Authorized Version, fortified by the preferences of the times, could withstand the call for greater accuracy in the nineteenth century but not the challenge of more intelligible versions in the twentieth. This cultural factor, more than any other, explains the altering fortunes of the translation of 1611. The reputation of the King James Bible in Britain was hugely but temporarily enhanced by Romantic feeling. (pg. 65-66)

————————————-

You can pick up a copy of this book at any of the following online retailers: Christianbook.com, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or Baylor University Press.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Baylor University Press for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

How Tall Was Goliath?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

Recently, Baker Books came out with a beautiful full color illustrated Bible handbook. I’ve enjoyed paging through this gem of a resource and am planning to post my review of it next week. When I came across the article it contained on Goliath’s height, I knew I’d have to share it with my blog audience. You’ll probably be as fascinated and intrigued by this article as I was.

The Baker Illustrated Bible Handbook is chuck full of other nuggets of interesting information, as well as countless Bible study aids. You can find this article on pg. 177, but be sure to pick up your own copy of this book (at Amazon, Christianbook.com, Barnes & Noble, or direct from Baker).

————————————-

How Tall Was Goliath?

In the Hebrew text that most of our English Bibles are based on, the height of Goliath in 1 Samuel 17:4 is “six cubits and a span.” In the ancient world, a cubit was about eighteen inches, and a span was about nine inches. Thus Goliath would have been about nine feet, nine inches tall. This is the way he has usually been portrayed in Christian tradition.

Surprisingly, in a scroll of Samuel found with the Dead Sea Scrolls, the height of Goliath is given as “four cubits and a span,” or only about six feet, nine inches. Likewise, the Septuagint, the early translation of the Old Testament into Greek and the Bible of the early church, also lists the height of Goliath as “four cubits and a span.”

The oldest Hebrew manuscript that has “six cubits and a span” dates to AD 935. No Hebrew manuscripts earlier than this list Goliath’s height at “six cubits and a span.” The Samuel scroll from the Dead Sea Scrolls, however (reading “four cubits and a span”), dates to about 50 BC, nearly one thousand years earlier. Likewise, we have Greek manuscripts of the Septuagint reading “four cubits and a span” that date to the fourth and fifth centuries AD.

Scholars are not quite sure what to make of this. In recent years, more and more scholars are acknowledging that the earlier manuscripts might contain a reading that is more likely to be original; thus perhaps Goliath was only six feet, nine inches.

Nothing else in the text requires Goliath to be nine feet, nine inches. He is never actually called a giant in the Bible. His armor (described in 17:5-7) is not something that a big, strong, six-foot-nine man could not carry, and besides being taller does not imply being stronger.

This discussion is not a challenge to the accuracy or inerrancy of the Bible. It is just an attempt to get at what the original reading was.

How would the shorter height of Goliath affect our understanding of the story? It is important to note that in the ancient world, people in general were quite a bit shorter than they are now. At this time in Palestine (about 1000 BC) the average height of men was only about five feet, two inches. So Goliath at six feet, nine inches was still an unusually large man. But remember that King Saul was a head taller than anyone in Israel (9:2). So Saul is probably six-foot-five or so, not much shorter than Goliath. Saul also has armor. So Saul is the likely candidate who should go forward and fight against Goliath. Note when Saul counsels David in 17:33, Saul does not seem concerned with Goliath’s size, but rather with Goliath’s years of training and experience.

Of course this is just a possibility. Scholars remain divided over what to do with the two heights of Goliath in the ancient manuscripts. Most English Bible translations still follow the traditional reading and list Goliath as nine feet, nine inches or as “six cubits and a span,” but this might change in the future.

————————————-

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Baker Books for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.