Help with the Atonement

Status
Not open for further replies.

Supersillymanable

Puritan Board Freshman
Hey guys,

As I've been looking into pre-reformation solid theologians, especially Anselm, I've realised that there a few views of the atonement which don't fit entirely with the Penal Substitutionary version of the atonement, which is how I understood it (such as the Satisfaction, Substitution and governmental views). Is there a book that that discusses the differences and nuances of these different positions (the ones running in the more reformed stream), and why Penal is the correct one (I think I understand that, but I'd like to get firmly grounded on this). I'd already heard of these positions, but I hadn't really given them much notice until now.

Also, if anyone has a good recommendation for a book dedicated to the defence of Penal Substitutionary Atonement, that'd really be helpful!

Thanks!
 
Not exactly what you are looking for but a book on the doctrine of the atonement that was helpful to me is The Atonement, It's Meaning & Significance by Leon Morris
 
Leon Morris' work is useful as a word study tool, and offers numerous insights in this respect, but it fails to offer anything like a satisfactory systematic treatment of the subject. In his own words, "I do not claim that at the end we will know exactly how the atonement works. Through more than nineteen centuries the church has been working at that problem and it still has not come up with an agreed solution" (p. 13). Such a view of church history is not deserving of acceptance, but given this was the author's viewpoint, it is obvious that this is not a book to find sound and solid answers on a subject which is at the heart of the gospel.

Though a little older, Hugh Martin's book on the Atonement provides clear and convincing argument in defence of the reformed doctrine of a definite, penal, covenantal, and priestly atonement, and shows the fundamental weakness in each of the competing theories. He does not address the medieval theories themselves, but their 19th century counterparts.
 
In his own words, "I do not claim that at the end we will know exactly how the atonement works. Through more than nineteen centuries the church has been working at that problem and it still has not come up with an agreed solution"
What exactly does he mean...reading Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones' Romans commentary he cited Morris as the one who won out against Dodd for propitiation rather than expiation. Does he mean we won't know it's fullest meaning...it baffles me he says this.
 
What exactly does he mean...reading Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones' Romans commentary he cited Morris as the one who won out against Dodd for propitiation rather than expiation. Does he mean we won't know it's fullest meaning...it baffles me he says this.

I take it that it was part of the rhetoric of the time. Attacks on key biblical doctrines throughout the 20th century included all kinds of language games, so the "word-study" method enabled conservatives to let the Bible speak for itself, in a way. It has its uses, but I don't think it is conducive to a systematic understanding. One must still integrate the numerous word-studies and show how they piece together.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top