Editor’s Note: This article was originally published as an article in Tabletalk magazine.
In an age wherein the ground of theology has been saturated by the torrential downpour of existential thinking, it seems almost suicidal, like facing the open floodgates riding a raft made of balsa wood, to appeal to a seventeenth-century theologian to address a pressing theological issue. Nothing evokes more snorts from the snouts of anti-rational zealots than appeals to sages from the era of Protestant Scholasticism.
Scholasticism is the pejorative term applied by so-called Neo-Orthodox (better spelled without the e in Neo), or progressive Reformed thinkers who embrace the Spirit of the Reformation while eschewing its letter to the seventeenth-century Reformed thinkers who codified the insights of their sixteenth-century magisterial forebears. To the scoffers of this present age, Protestant Scholasticism is seen as a reification or calcification of the dynamic and liquid forms of earlier Reformed insight. It is viewed as a deformation from the lively, sanguine rediscovery of biblical thought to a deadly capitulation to the Age of Reason, whereby the vibrant truths of redemption were reduced to logical propositions and encrusted in dry theological tomes and arid creedal formulations such as the Westminster Confession of Faith.
On the surface, it seems that of the five points of Tulip, the doctrine of limited atonement presents the most difficulties.
The besetting sin of men like Francis Turretin and John Owen was their penchant for precision and clarity in doctrinal statements. As J. I. Packer observed in his introduction of John Owens classic work, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ:
Those who see no need for doctrinal exactness and have no time for theological debates which show up divisions between so-called Evangelicals may well regret its reappearance . Owens work is a constructive broad-based biblical analysis of the heart of the gospel, and must be taken seriously as such . Nobody has the right to dismiss the doctrine of the limitedness of the atonement as a monstrosity of Calvinistic logic until he has refuted Owens proof that it is part of the uniform biblical presentation of redemption, clearly taught in plain text after plain text.
The monster created by Calvinistic logic to which Packer refers is the doctrine of limited atonement. The so-called Five points of Calvinism (growing out of a dispute with Remonstrants (Arminians) in Holland in the early seventeenth century) have been popularized by the acrostic T-U-L-I-P, spelling out the finest flower in Gods garden:
T Total Depravity
U Unconditional Election
L Limited Atonement
I Irresistible Grace
P Perseverance of the Saints.
Many who embrace a view of Gods sovereign grace in election are willing to embrace the Tulip if one of its five petals is lopped off. Those calling themselves four-point Calvinists desire to knock the L out of Tulip.
On the surface, it seems that of the five points of Tulip, the doctrine of limited atonement presents the most difficulties. Does not the Bible teach over and over that Jesus died for the whole world? Is not the scope of the atonement worldwide? The most basic affirmation the Evangelical recites is John 3:16: For God so loved the world .
On the other hand, it seems to me that the easiest of the five points to defend is limited atonement. But this facility must get under the surface to be manifested. The deepest penetration under that surface is the one provided by Owen in The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.