“But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God”
Heb. 10:12
“…and I lay down my life for the sheep.”
Jn. 10:15
“Ay, ay, d’ye know what it was – dying on the cross, forsaken by the Father? D’ye know what it was? What? What? It was damnation, and damnation taken lovingly… It was damnation, and He took it lovingly.”
John ‘Rabbi’ Duncan
.
.
Subsections
Active Obedience
Desertion of Christ
Necessity
Sufficiency
Limited
Provides Common Grace to Reprobates
Incarnation apart from Redemption?
.
.
Order of Contents
Articles 12
Books 16
Quotes 10
But God cannot be Angry at his Son 1
Latin 1
Historical 3
.
.
Articles
1500’s
Beza, Theodore – 3. The Papists’ Doctrine makes the Oblation of Jesus Christ of None effect in A Brief & Pithy Sum of the Christian Faith made in Form of a Confession (London, 1565)
Viret, Pierre – A Christian Instruction… (d. 1571; London: Veale, 1573)
The Sum of the Principal Points of the Christian Faith
18. Of the Virtue of the Death & Passion of Jesus Christ, & of the true purgatory of the Christians 17-18
A Familiar Exposition of the Principal Points of the Catechism
Of the Sacrifice & Satisfaction of Jesus Christ, & of the Virtue thereof
Ursinus, Zachary
The Sum of Christian Religion: Delivered… in his Lectures upon the Catechism… tr. Henrie Parrie (Oxford, 1587)
Apostles’ Creed, On the Name ‘Jesus’, 4. Whom He saves 437
Of Christ’s Death, 3. The fruit of Christ’s death 564
A Preface of an Oration… by a certain student of divinity in the famous University of Heidelberg…: To whom the benefit of the Death & Resurrection of Christ appertains: and how Christ died for all men [by way of sufficiency] in A Collection of Certain Learned Discourses… (Oxford, 1600)
“Concerning the story and benefit of our Lord’s resurrection… directing our course as it were by the loadstar of scripture we pronounce by virtue and authority thereof that so precious and inestimable a benefit belongs unto all the faithful, and to them alone; and we exclude the wicked and unbelievers, as long as they remain such, from having any interest therein…
The answer hereunto is twofold, either of which is true and sound. First, as often as the Gospel extends the fruit of Christ’s merits and benefits unto all, it must be understood (as says Saint Ambrose) of the whole number of the faithful and elect. For this is the usual and common voice found everywhere throughout the whole course of the gospel…
Howbeit there is another answer no less true, wherewith we may satisfy the most contentious wranglers; that Christ died for all men absolutely and without exception to wit, if you respect the sufficiency of the merit, and the price which He paid. It is out of all doubt and controversy that the death of the Son of God is of such weight and worth that it may serve to purge and cleanse the sins not of one world only, but thousands of worlds; if at least all men would apprehend by faith this salve of sin. But the question concerns the efficacy and participation itself of the fruits which we mainly deny to be common to the believing, and unbelieving, or to be generally promised or given in the〈…〉; and we hold it no sound doctrine to 〈…〉 in this respect Christ died alike for all ???? and reprobate…
For what slander is there, if this be none. When we distinguish the worth of the merue from the efficacy and participating of the benefits, and restrain according to Scripture and the judgement of the soundest Fathers this participation to the whole number of the faithful alone gathered from amongst the Jews and Gentiles; do we then deny that Christ died for all?…
They [opponents] run on still, and say He died for all and every of these not only in respect of the sufficiency of his sacrifice and satisfaction, but also in regard of the efficacy of the same. What means this new device I pray? That forsooth Christ by his death and bloodshedding has truly and effectually delivered from death, purged from sin, sanctified, reconciled unto God, and restored unto his grace and favor by his death and bloodshedding all and every single man, yea even those who are not saved, but have been ever since Caine, etc. are at this day, and shall be hereafter damned… they neither perished, nay perish, nor shall perish, for their sins (whereas they are washed away by the blood of Christ Jesus) but for unbelief alone.” – pp. 132 & 134, 142
.
1600’s
Perkins, William
‘Christ’s Sacrifice’ in An Exposition of the Symbol, or Apostles’ Creed… (Cambridge, 1595), p. 260
Perkins (d. 1602) was an influential, puritan, Anglican clergyman and Cambridge theologian.
6. Of Satisfaction in A Reformed Catholic… ([Cambridge] 1598)
Ames, William – The Marrow of Theology tr. John D. Eusden (1623; Baker, 1997), bk. 1
ch. 20, ‘Satisfaction’, pp. 134-37
ch. 22, ‘The Death of Christ’, pp. 141-44
Ames (1576-1633) was an English, puritan, congregationalist, minister, philosopher and controversialist. He spent much time in the Netherlands, and is noted for his involvement in the controversy between the reformed and the Arminians. Voet highly commended Ames’s Marrow for learning theology.
Thysius, Anthony – 29. ‘On the Satisfaction by Jesus Christ’ in Synopsis of a Purer Theology: Latin Text & English Translation Buy (1625; Brill, 2016), vol. 2, pp. 180-208
Turretin, Francis – Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1992), vol. 2, 14th Topic
11. ‘Did Christ truly and properly satisfy God’s justice in our place? We affirm against the Socinians.’ 426
12. ‘Was the satisfaction of Christ so perfect as to leave no room after it either for human satisfactions in this life or for purgatory after this life? We affirm against the Romanists.’ 438
.
1800’s
Cunningham, William – ‘The Doctrine of the Atonement’, p. 237 ff, 133 pp. in Historical Theology, vol. 2
Cunningham was of the Free Church of Scotland.
Dabney, Robert – ‘Christ our Substitute’ no date, 4 pp. published by the Presbyterian Committee of Publication, Richmond, VA.
Hodge, Charles – ‘Beman on the Atonement’ being chapter four from his Essays & Reviews, p. 129 (1857) 55 pp.
.
1900’s
Murray, John
‘The Atonement’ (1976) 43 paragraphs
‘The Nature of the Atonement’ from Redemption Accomplished & Applied, pp. 19-50
Berkhof, Louis – Systematic Theology (1950)
‘The Nature of the Atonement’ 25 paragraphs
‘Divergent Theories of the Atonement’ 23 paragraphs
.
.
Books
Middle Ages
Anselm – Why God Became Man, or Cur Deo Homo 110 pp.
George Smeaton says that the title “must be translated, ‘Why a God-man?'” and gives a survey of the work in pp. 510-520 of his historical appendix to the Apostles Doctrine of the Atonement.
.
1600’s
Outram, William – Two Dissertations on Sacrifices: the First on the Sacrifices of the Jews, the Second on the Sacrifice of Christ (1679) 420 pp.
Outram (1625-1679) was a latitudinarian Anglican, who here argues the orthodox nature of sacrifice against Socinianism.
Turretin, Francis – On the Atonement 220 pp.
.
1800’s
Hodge, Charles – On the Nature of the Atonement in Spruce Street Lectures (Philadelphia, 1832) 169 pp.
Crawford, Thomas – The Doctrine of Holy Scripture Respecting the Atonement (1871) 520 pp.
Crawford was a conservative Church of Scotland minister.
Candlish, Robert – An Inquiry into the Completeness & Extent of the Atonement, with Special Reference to the Universal Offer of the Gospel & the Universal Obligation to Believe (1845) 225 pp.
Candlish was a leader in the Free Church of Scotland.
Martin, Hugh – The Atonement in its Relations to the Covenant, the Priesthood, the Intercession of our Lord (1877) 315 pp.
Martin was a minister of the Free Church of Scotland.
Smeaton, George
The Doctrine of the Atonement as Taught by Christ Himself 1871 536 pp.
Smeaton was a minister of the Free Church of Scotland.
The significance of this volume, along with other reasons, is that persons often claim that the atonement was a theological explanation and doctrine made up by the apostle Paul, whereas Jesus’ simple teachings were absent of it. Smeaton shows that all of the foundational facets of the teaching of the atonement were taught by Jesus, and authorized by Him.
The Doctrine of the Atonement as Taught by the Apostles 1870 560 pp.
The significance of this volume, amongst other things, is its showing that the apostles’ teaching on the atonement was founded on, and simply a further development in greater fullness of what Christ taught. It also surveys the doctrine in each of the N.T. epistles.
It also includes an appendix on a ‘Historical Sketch of the Doctrine of the Atonement’ (65 pp.).
Magee, William – Discourses & Dissertations on the Scriptural Doctrines of Atonement and Sacrifice, vol. 1, 2, 3 ToC
“On the subject of the Atonement, writer of the greatest eminence have, in every age, exerted their talents. The labors of Archbishop Magee, and of Dr. J. Pye Smith, stand pre-eminent in modern times.
The former writer has accumulated a body of proof for the reality of the Atonement, which will serve to transmit to posterity his fame for Biblical knowledge, acute thinking, and learned research. But besides regretting that his varied materials had not been arranged in a more orderly and useful form, the friends of true religion have to lament that the opinions of this distinguished author, on some vital points, should have been not only defective but erroneous.
These defects of the Archbishop have been supplied by the labors of Dr. Smith, who, in his Four Discourses, has given a masterly view of what may be called the philosophy of the Atonement.” – William Symington
Symington, Andrew – On the Atonement & Intercession of Jesus Christ (1847) 305 pp.
Symington was a Scottish, Reformed Presbyterian.
“There are other writers who treat, some of the necessity, and others of the extent of the Atonement. But it appeared desirable that there should exist a work embracing a view of the whole subject; so comprehensive as not to fatigue the mind on any one topic, and yet so copious as not altogether to disappoint the serious and anxious inquirer… To furnish such a work has been the aim of the present writer. He is not aware of the existence of any treatise on precisely the same plan.” – Preface
Smith, John Pye – Four Discourses on the Sacrifice & Priesthood of Jesus Christ & the Atonement & Redemption (1847) 403 pp.
Pye was an English, dissenting minister.
“On the subject of the Atonement, writer of the greatest eminence have, in every age, exerted their talents. The labors of Archbishop Magee, and of Dr. J. Pye Smith, stand pre-eminent in modern times.
The former writer has accumulated a body of proof for the reality of the Atonement… But besides regretting that his varied materials had not been arranged in a more orderly and useful form, the friends of true religion have to lament that the opinions of this distinguished author, on some vital points, should have been not only defective but erroneous.
These defects of the Archbishop have been supplied by the labors of Dr. Smith, who, in his Four Discourses, has given a masterly view of what may be called the philosophy of the Atonement.” – William Symington
MacDonnell, John – The Doctrine of the Atonement Deduced from Scripture & Vindicated from Misapprehensions & Objections. Six Discourses (1858) 275 pp.
MacDonnell was an Anglican. The work is dedicated to William Magee.
Dabney, Robert – Christ Our Penal Substitute Buy 115 pp.
A defense of the legal nature of the atonement based in justice for punishing sins, and Christ being a substitute for his people.
Hodge, A.A. – The Atonement 1867 440 pp.
.
1900’s
Boettner, Loraine – The Atonement
.
.
Quotes
John ‘Rabbi’ Duncan
‘Just a Talker’, pp. 8,26-28
“Ah, dear gentlemen, there is something tremendous in the atonement.”
“The whole question of the atonement… must… be base on the two propositions, moral and legal: (i) that sin deserves punishment; and (ii) that vindictive justice belongs to God.”
“We are asked [by liberals] to throw aside every theory of the atonement and repose in the fact. But I cannot receive the atonement as a blank mystery… the fact of an atonement would not be clear to me apart from its reasons and relations.”
“The atonement did not make God propitious, merciful, longsuffering [notice the order in Jn. 3:16]; but God’s great love said, ‘I am ready to forgive, if I can do it justly’, and, his infinite wisdom finding that He could do it justly in this way, He resolved on the sacrifice.”
“Divine vengeance found sin in us, but Christ was made sin for us.”
“Justice required satisfaction, but love gave vicarious satisfaction.”
“Take away the substitution, and all that remains for me is this: ‘Jesus tried to make us good; but, good man, he failed.”
“You remember one of my favourite tracts, ‘The Poor Negress’. The broken English leaves out the connections, and brings in the big facts. ‘He die, or we die: He die, we no die.'”
“The blood of Jesus is surely a ransom for ten thousand pits!”
“The expulsion form Eden was an awful thing; the deluge was an awful thing; the destruction of Sodom was an awful thing; the events of the last day will be awful; hell is very awful. There is something more awful still – it is the cross of the Lord Jesus.”
.
Objection: But God the Father, Consubstantial with God the Son, One God Eternally Blessed, cannot be Wrathful at simply a Human Nature, nor at the Person of his Son
Quote
1600’s
William Ames
The Marrow of Theology tr. John D. Eusden (1623; Baker, 1997), ch. 22, ‘The Death of Christ’, p. 142
“9. The object of this wrath was not Christ as such. It was connected only with that punishment which He underwent as our surety.”
.
Latin Articles
1600’s
Voet, Gisbert – Syllabus of Theological Problems (Utrecht, 1643), pt. 1, section 2 Abbr.
tract 2
“Whether Christ actually expiated and satisfied for our sins? It is affirmed contra the Socinians.
Whether such an expiation was necessary? It is affirmed contra the Socinians.
Whether it was a full and total expiation? It is affirmed.
Whether it is able to be said Christ according to each nature was a sacrifice and victim? It is denied.
Whether his oblation of Himself was properly a victim? It is affirmed.
Whether therefore passions ought not to be referred to the sacrifice and victim? It is affirmed.
Whether the whole passive obedience of Christ is able to be called a victim and sacrifice? It is denied with a distinction.
Whether that dignity, by which the death of Christ redounds dignity and efficacy, so it is a ransom (lutron), is able to be called part of the victim? It is distinguished.
Whether the divine nature was the altar, or indeed the sign of the cross was? The former is affirmed.”
tract 3
1. Of the Obedience, Satisfaction & Merit of Christ
“Whether Christ died for us, that is vicariously and in our place, and further that salvation was brought forth for us? It is affirmed against the Socinians.
…
Whether He is our mediator only so far as a messenger is? It is denied.
Whether Christ truly reconciled us to the Father, or whether our redemption done through that indeed was only metaphorical? The former is affirmed, the latter is denied.
…
Whether Christ’s death is meritorious to us, or it was in truth a preparation only unto his priesthood? The former is affirmed.
Whether the dogma of satisfaction and merit in the sacred pages is founded, or repugnant to right reason? The former is affirmed, the latter is denied.
…”
Of the Types of the Satisfaction of Christ
On the End to Which of the Satisfaction & Merit
“Whether Christ suffered and died for every single man, none excepted? It is denied.
Whether and in what sense the distinction between the sufficiency and efficacy of Christ’s death in this matter is to be admitted? It is explained.
Whether therefore it is rightly able to be said that Christ died and satisfied as mediator and a sponsor for all sufficiently? It is denied.
Whether Christ so died for all and every single man that he procured [impetrarit] for those reconciliation with God and the remission of sins? It is denied.
Whether the death of Christ expiated the sin of Adam and original sin in all men, and even through that the whole human genus was assumed into the Covenant of Grace, and lastly sufficient grace was being acquired and communicated for faith and regeneration for all and every single man? It is denied, contra the Anabaptists, Puccius, Huber [a Lutheran], etc.
Whether all and every single man is given from the Father to Christ? It is denied.
Whether Christ on the cross bore up [in] the person of the elect ones? It is affirmed.
Whether He neither was able or ought to have died for the elect? It is denied.
Whether Christ was a priest for all men, even Pharaoh? It is denied.
Whether the intercession of Christ is twofold, one, universal for all men, even unbelievers, the other for the particular faithful ones? It is denied.
Whether Christ always achieves the end of his death? It is affirmed.
Whether the proper and thus truly spoken end of Christ’s death is the application of reconciliation and the remission of sins? It is affirmed.
Whether the procuring and application of reconciliation are not of equally wide extent, but are separable, so that reconciliation may not be applied to all for whom procuring has been wrought? It is denied contra the Remonstrants.
…
Whether the efficacy of the death of Christ in the production of faith and regeneration, or with respect to the event, stands wholly within us? It is denied.
Whether God has prepared on his part to propose the word of reconciliation, secured through the death of Christ, to all and every man? It is denied.
Whether the ransom (lutron) of Christ is sufficient even to redeem devils? It is denied.
Whether all and every man ought to believe Christ has died for him, whether absolutely or even hypothetically? The latter is affirmed.
[This might mean that every person ought to believe that Christ died for him on a certain hypothesis being posited, namely if he believes.]
Whether, hence, all the impious are condemned because they did not believer Christ died for them? It is denied.
Whether Christ’s death has been accomplishing out of the greatest love which He loved all those for which He died? It is affirmed.
Whether the fruit of Christ’s resurrection, even of his ascension and session at the right hand, pertains to all and every one for whom He died? It is affirmed.
Whether unbeleivers or impenitents are able to console themselves in the death of Christ? It is denied.
Whether the Remonstrants [Arminians] in their second article defend the laud and glory of divine grace, and further, the efficacy of Christ’s merit, against us? It is denied: certainly they nowhere greatly overturn.
Whether Christ fulfilled the law in our place by holy living? It is affirmed against the Socinians.
Whether Christ fulfilled the law even for Himself, and was bound to fulfill, and further, hence, He merited for Himself? The former is affirmed, the latter is distinguished.
…
Whether the satisfaction for us being looked into is able to be the end of our faith? It is distinguished.”
.
Historical Theology
On the Post-Reformation
Articles
Walker, James – ch. 3, ‘The Atonement’ in The Theology & Theologians of Scotland: Chiefly of the Seventeenth & Eighteenth Centuries, p. 67 ff.
A survey of the doctrine of the Atonement from the perspective of 1600’s Scotland, from a minister in the Free Church of Scotland.
Mosser, Carl – ‘Recovering the Classic Concept of Satisfaction’, pt. 1, 2, 3 (2021)
While not every statement and claim in these articles is endorsed, especially in the third part, yet they are helpful on a number of levels.
.
On the 1700’s
Crawford, Brandon – Jonathan Edwards on the Atonement Buy 147 pp.
.
.
.
“In giving Christ to die for poor sinners, God gave the richest jewel in His cabinet; a mercy of the greatest worth, and most inestimable value. Heaven itself is not so valuable and precious as Christ is!”
John Flavel
.
.
.
Related Pages