[Published

in the Calvin Theological Journal 49 (2014): 352-354]

From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical,
Theological, and Pastoral Perspective edited by David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson.
Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2013. Pp.703. $50.00.
The doctrine of definite or limited atonement that Christ made a satisfaction for
the sins of the elect only has been a provocative doctrine eliciting a variety of strong
opinions. This compendium of twenty-three essays on the doctrine of definite atonement
is the first of its kind with respect to both the breadth of essays and level of scholarship.
The volume is divided into four large sections which create a map or web of the
doctrine: (1) Church History; (2) The Bible; (3) Systematic Theology; and (4) Pastoral
Theology. The book offers much to learned ministers.
From Heaven He Came and Sought Her is the most up-to-date defense of definite
atonement taking into account all the recent historical research into the diversity of
Reformed theology in the early modern period. Following the lead of historical
theologians like Richard Muller and Lee Gatiss (who authors a chapter in the book), the
book rightly acknowledges the diversity of Reformed positions vis--vis the extent of
Christs satisfaction. For example, it extends the Reformed label to positions once
regarded as non-confessional, the awkward cousins in the [Reformed] family (43), such
as hypothetical universalism (popularly, albeit inappropriately, called four-point
Calvinism), which teaches that Christ made a satisfaction for each and every persons
sins. Refreshingly, the essay by Donald Macleod exposits the prolific seventeenthcentury Reformed hypothetical universalists John Davenant and Richard Baxter at a
depth not typically found in volumes arguing for definite atonement.
Many essays are instructive and well argued. Carl Truemans essay accurately
delineates the differences between Baxter and Owen on the nature of the atonement as
well as its extent. Similarly, Lee Gatiss brings to light the history surrounding the second
article produced at the Synod of Dort. (However, he wishes to define definite atonement
by means of that article, implying that English hypothetical universalism is a definite
atonement position or at least agreeable with it.) Thomas Schreiners essay displays
careful exegesis and cautious conclusions with respect to various New Testament texts
touching on the atonement. Garry Williamss two essays are groundbreaking insofar as
he is the first one (to my knowledge) to interact with the various Reformed critiques of
the double-payment argument. Finally, the essay by Sinclair Ferguson, while found in
the pastoral section of the book, deals extensively and penetratingly with the rather
atypical arguments against definite atonement offered by John Mcleod Campbell in the
nineteenth century.
Even so, the book contains confusing claims that call into question whether this
book can be recommended as a consistent and accurate defense of definite atonement.
From Heaven He Came and Sought Her lacks sufficient precision over how definite
atonement relates to redemption accomplished in distinction from redemption applied.
The most glaring deficiency of the book is its ambiguity over the definition of
definite atonement. The editors introductory essay begins with a definition which
affirms that Christ achiev[ed] the redemption of the elect alone (33), which I take to
mean that Christ in no way accomplished redemption on behalf of the non-elect. This
definition is consistent with definite atonement as found in Reformed theology since the
sixteenth century. However, this is quickly eclipsed by the use of a definition that is not

[Published in the Calvin Theological Journal 49 (2014): 352-354]

distinct to definite atonement. Generally speaking, the books de facto definition often
amounts to little more than this: God intended or designed to savingly apply the benefits
of the death of Christ to the elect alone. That God designed the death of Christ to be
savingly applied only to the elect is hardly controversial among any confessional
Reformed theologian, whether he or she affirms hypothetical universalism or not.
Instead, the book only obfuscates the real issue that advocates of definite atonement
should be arguing, namely, that Christ made a satisfaction only for the sins of the elect.
Other assertions also undermine the uniqueness of definite atonement over against
competing theological claims like hypothetical universalism. For example, the editors
claim that the Synod of Dort is the classic statement of definite atonement (35). They
then assert that hypothetical universalism is confessionally orthodox. This begs the
question, how can Dort be the classic statement of definite atonement while also
allowing for a hypothetical universalist position? This confusion over what is and is not
definite atonement unfortunately persists not merely in the introductory essay but
throughout the whole.
Further evidence that the book appears to miss the real defining mark of definite
atonement, at least as it is historically understood, can be gleaned from the books use
(46; 402) of Louis Berkhofs status quaestionis in his Systematic Theology. Berkhof
asks: Did the Father in sending Christ, and did Christ coming into the world, to make
atonement for sin, do this with the design or for the purpose of saving only the elect or all
men? That is the question, and that only is the question. Berkhof may be confident in
his assertion, but Richard Baxter (a hypothetical universalist) was equally confident in
affirming that Christs death was designed to save the elect alone (Baxter, Universal
Redemption, 481ff.). Instead, the defining issue wholly, and only, concerns Gods will
with regard to Christs satisfactionwas Christ punished for the sins of the elect only or
all human beings? Definite atonement limits redemption accomplished to the elect alone.
Definite atonement should not be used as shorthand for an intention to apply redemption
to the elect alone, but rather for an intention to accomplish redemption for the elect alone.
Only after clearly grasping the correct status quaestionis, which could and should have
been acquired from people like Francis Turretin or Herman Bavinck, can a reader
appropriately judge whether a particular theologian or biblical text teaches or assumes a
definite atonement.
The essays by David Hogg and Michael Haykin illustrate this need for clarity.
Haykins essay on the ancient church and definite atonement draws many specious
conclusions from various quotations of the Patristics. For instance, Haykin argues on the
basis of Jeromes use of the phrase ransom for many, that the words at least hint that
Jerome saw Christs death to be for a particular group of people (70). Yet, it seems
reasonable, even likely, that the word ransom there does not denote redemption
accomplished, but redemption applied. The confusion over redemption accomplished
and applied is equally probable in the case of Haykins exposition of Clement, Hilary,
Ambrose, and Prosper. Hoggs essay dealing with Peter Lombards sufficient/efficient
formula not only displays the same sorts of problems mentioned above, but also
demonstrates a lack of appreciation for the true original purpose of the Lombardian
formula. Hogg spends an exorbitant amount of time (81-88) discussing the predestined
in Lombards theology, based on a misreading of Raymond Blacketer and Jonathan
Rainbow, without discussing the real heart of the matterthe relationship between the

[Published in the Calvin Theological Journal 49 (2014): 352-354]

sufficiency and efficacy of the satisfaction. Moreover, beginning in the latter sixteenth
and early seventeenth centuries, the Lombardian formula was actually revised or rejected
in order to preclude the idea of an unlimited satisfaction. That significantly calls into
doubt whether Peter Lombards formula clearly admits to a definite atonement reading as
Hogg suggests.
All told, the book does not surpass John Owens classic work The Death of Death
in the Death of Christ in terms of precision or cogency of argument. However, it is a
welcome contribution to current conversations regarding the extent of Christs
satisfaction in atonement theology.
Michael J. Lynch