What do you think?
Rate this book
The Atonement of Christ
Turretin's writings had a formative influence on theologians of the calibre of Charles Hodge and others. His work on the Atonement of Christ demonstrates a depth and clarity of thought that makes it as relevant today as when he first wrote it. Its defence of all that the Lord Jesus Christ accomplished on behalf of His people, furnishes principles that effectively counter even contemporary attacks on the biblical doctrine of the atonement that Turretin himself could not have anticipated.
- GenresTheology
127 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 26, 2011
28 people are currently reading
49 people want to read
About the author
Francis Turretin
31 books22 followersFrancis Turretin (also known as François Turretini) was a Swiss-Italian Protestant theologian.
Turretin is especially known as a zealous opponent of the theology of the Academy of Saumur (embodied by Moise Amyraut and called Amyraldianism), as an earnest defender of the Calvinistic orthodoxy represented by the Synod of Dort, and as one of the authors of the Helvetic Consensus, which defended the formulation of double predestination from the Synod of Dort and the verbal inspiration of the Bible.
Turretin is especially known as a zealous opponent of the theology of the Academy of Saumur (embodied by Moise Amyraut and called Amyraldianism), as an earnest defender of the Calvinistic orthodoxy represented by the Synod of Dort, and as one of the authors of the Helvetic Consensus, which defended the formulation of double predestination from the Synod of Dort and the verbal inspiration of the Bible.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
October 13, 2022
This is a section of Turretin’s Institutes on the atonement and was extremely helpful for its clarity of argument. It deals with several aspects of the atonement, but the largest section was the fifth and last on the extent of the atonement.
“Among the ancients, the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians contended that Christ died for all men: hence Prosper says, in his letter to Augustine concerning the remains of the Pelagian heresy, "Those who embrace the Pelagian heresy profess to believe that Christ died for all men universally, and that none are excluded from the atonement and redemption which the blood of Christ has effected." And among those errors which they attribute to Augustine, they find this: "The Saviour was not crucified for the redemption of the whole world." Faustus, says, "They wander far from the path of piety, who assert that Christ did not die for all." Hincmar, in his letter to Pope Nicholas, recounts it as one of the errors of Gotteschalcus, that he preached that Christ did not shed his blood, precious to God the Father, for the redemption and salvation of all men, but only for those who will be saved, or for the elect” (46).
In response to 1 Timothy 4:10:
“From this, Chrysostom, Œcumenius, Primasius, and Ambrose say "that he is the Saviour of all in the present life, but of the faithful only as to eternal life." And Thomas says, "he is the preserver of the present and future life, because he saves all men with a bodily salvation, and thus he is called the Saviour of all men. He also saves the righteous with both a bodily and spiritual salvation, and hence is said to be the Saviour especially of those who believe"” (51).
“Jerome, in his comment on Matthew 20, says, "The evangelist does not say that Christ gave himself for all, but for many, i.e., for all those who would believe," who are none other than the elect in whom God works both to will and to do. A gloss interlined on Jerome's book adds these words, "for many, not for all: but for those who were predestinated to life”” (53).
Not about revealed will:
“Atonement does not respect the value and sufficiency of the death of Christ: whether as to its intrinsic worth it might be sufficient for the redemption of all men. It is confessed by all, that since its value is infinite, it would have been sufficient for the redemption of the entire human family, had it appeared good to God to extend it to the whole world. To this purpose a distinction is made by the Fathers and retained by many divines, that "Christ died sufficiently for all, but efficiently for the elect only." This is perfectly true, if it is understood of the dignity of Christ's death, though the phrase is not accurate if it is referred to the will and purpose of Christ. The question which we discuss concerns the purpose of the Father in sending his Son, and the intention of the Son in dying. Did the Father destine his Son for a Saviour to all men and every man, and did the Son deliver himself up to death, with a design to substitute himself in the place of all men of all nations, to make satisfaction and acquire salvation for them? Or, did he resolve to give himself for the elect only, who were given him by the Father to be redeemed, and whose Head he was to be? The pivot on which the controversy turns is, what was the purpose of the Father in sending his Son to die, and the object which Christ had in view in dying: not what is the value and efficacy of his death. Hence the question does not, as some learned divines have affirmed, respect the revealed will of God, but his secret will, his decree, to which, as all must agree, the mission and death of Christ are to be referred.” (49).
“It is just as absurd to pretend that Christ died to atone for man's unbelief, provided he would not be unbelieving, but believe. This is like saying I have discovered an infallible remedy for healing a blind or leprous man which will be applied on this condition: that he not be blind or leprous” (61).
“Among the ancients, the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians contended that Christ died for all men: hence Prosper says, in his letter to Augustine concerning the remains of the Pelagian heresy, "Those who embrace the Pelagian heresy profess to believe that Christ died for all men universally, and that none are excluded from the atonement and redemption which the blood of Christ has effected." And among those errors which they attribute to Augustine, they find this: "The Saviour was not crucified for the redemption of the whole world." Faustus, says, "They wander far from the path of piety, who assert that Christ did not die for all." Hincmar, in his letter to Pope Nicholas, recounts it as one of the errors of Gotteschalcus, that he preached that Christ did not shed his blood, precious to God the Father, for the redemption and salvation of all men, but only for those who will be saved, or for the elect” (46).
In response to 1 Timothy 4:10:
“From this, Chrysostom, Œcumenius, Primasius, and Ambrose say "that he is the Saviour of all in the present life, but of the faithful only as to eternal life." And Thomas says, "he is the preserver of the present and future life, because he saves all men with a bodily salvation, and thus he is called the Saviour of all men. He also saves the righteous with both a bodily and spiritual salvation, and hence is said to be the Saviour especially of those who believe"” (51).
“Jerome, in his comment on Matthew 20, says, "The evangelist does not say that Christ gave himself for all, but for many, i.e., for all those who would believe," who are none other than the elect in whom God works both to will and to do. A gloss interlined on Jerome's book adds these words, "for many, not for all: but for those who were predestinated to life”” (53).
Not about revealed will:
“Atonement does not respect the value and sufficiency of the death of Christ: whether as to its intrinsic worth it might be sufficient for the redemption of all men. It is confessed by all, that since its value is infinite, it would have been sufficient for the redemption of the entire human family, had it appeared good to God to extend it to the whole world. To this purpose a distinction is made by the Fathers and retained by many divines, that "Christ died sufficiently for all, but efficiently for the elect only." This is perfectly true, if it is understood of the dignity of Christ's death, though the phrase is not accurate if it is referred to the will and purpose of Christ. The question which we discuss concerns the purpose of the Father in sending his Son, and the intention of the Son in dying. Did the Father destine his Son for a Saviour to all men and every man, and did the Son deliver himself up to death, with a design to substitute himself in the place of all men of all nations, to make satisfaction and acquire salvation for them? Or, did he resolve to give himself for the elect only, who were given him by the Father to be redeemed, and whose Head he was to be? The pivot on which the controversy turns is, what was the purpose of the Father in sending his Son to die, and the object which Christ had in view in dying: not what is the value and efficacy of his death. Hence the question does not, as some learned divines have affirmed, respect the revealed will of God, but his secret will, his decree, to which, as all must agree, the mission and death of Christ are to be referred.” (49).
“It is just as absurd to pretend that Christ died to atone for man's unbelief, provided he would not be unbelieving, but believe. This is like saying I have discovered an infallible remedy for healing a blind or leprous man which will be applied on this condition: that he not be blind or leprous” (61).
February 27, 2019
A great summary of the Reformed position on the atonement.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews