Skip to content

How not to Quote-Mine

May 19, 2009

Here is an interesting exercise for our readers, a good lesson in how now to do historical research.

The danger which many of our internet uber-apologists is that they fall into a closed loop of relying on secondary sources, which results in the publishing of disinformation.  They end up, then, in a closed loop of mutual invincible ignorance.

Here is what I mean. Turretinfan, has posted some comments purportedly proving that limited atonement is an historic doctrine of Christianity.  Click on his name and you will see the “quotes.” For the sake of brevity, let us today take a look at one of the proof-texts.

Turretinfan, not thinking of his readers, does not cite the bibliographic sources for his comments. On seeing that, I immediately doubted these were the results of original research. Some time with the good ol’ Google search engine and I came up with what is clearly his source.  He cites the research of an old former friend of mine, David King (whether Turretinfan lifted this directly from King’s post or indirectly is beside the point). I believe David will not mind me reproducing his list of comments here.

David King:

The Early Church Fathers were inconsistent in their affirmations of particular redemption. You may want to check out the citations in The Works of John Owen (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust), Vol. 10, pp. 422-424. I’m not convinced that all these whom Owen cites were indeed affirming definite atonement, as such, but his list is worth observing. Here are some quotes I’ve compiled in my studies…

David: Of interest is that David King admits that he is not convinced of all the proofs Owen alledges in the back of his Death of Death. King is right to be skeptical as Owen has misrepresented every one of the authors he cites. But that aside…

King adduces:

Ambrose (c. 339-97): Although Christ suffered for all, yet He suffered for us particularly, because He suffered for the Church. Saint Ambrose of Milan, Exposition of the Holy Gospel according to Saint Luke, trans. Theodosia Tomkinson (Etna: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1998), Book VI, §25, p. 201.
Latin Text: Et si Christus pro omnibus passus est, pro nobis tamen specialiter passus est; quia pro Ecclesia passus est. Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam, 6.25, PL 15:1675.
Ambrose (c. 339-97): Great, therefore, is the mystery of Christ, before which even angels stood amazed and bewildered. For this cause, then, it is thy duty to worship Him, and, being a servant, thou oughtest not to detract from thy Lord. Ignorance thou mayest not plead, for to this end He came down, that thou mayest believe; if thou believest not, He has not come down for thee, has not suffered for thee. “If I had not come,” saith the Scripture, “and spoken with them, they would have no sin: but now have they no excuse for their sin. He that hateth Me, hateth My Father also.” Who, then, hates Christ, if not he who speaks to His dishonor? — for as it is love’s part to render, so it is hate’s to withdraw honor. He who hates, calls in question; he who loves, pays reverence. NPNF2: Vol.: Volume X, Of the Christian Faith, Book IV, Chapter 2, §27.
Ambrosiaster: The people of God hath its own fulness. In the elect and foreknown, distinguished from the generality of all, there is accounted a certain special universality; so that the whole world seems to be delivered from the whole world, and all men to be taken out of all men. See Works of John Owen, Vol. 10, p. 423.
Latin text: Habet ergo populus Dei plenitudinem suam, et quamvis magna pars hominum, salvantis gratiam aut repellat aut negligat, in electis tamen et praescitis, atque ab omnium generalitate discretis, specialis quaedam censetur universitas, ut de toto mundo totus mundus liberatus, et de omnibus hominibus omnes homines videantur assumpti: De Vocatione Gentium, Liber Primus, Caput III, PL 17:1084.

Jerome (347-420) on Matthew 20:28: He does not say that he gave his life for all, but for many, that is, for all those who would believe. See Turretin, Vol. 2, p. 462.
Latin text: Non dixit animam suam redemptionem dare pro omnibus, sed pro multis, id est, pro his qui credere voluerint. Commentariorum in Evangelium Matthaei, Liber Tertius, PL 26:144-145.

Hilary of Arles (c. 401-449) commenting on 1 John 2:2: When John says that Christ died for the sins of the “whole world,” what he means is that he died for the whole church. Introductory Commentary on 1 John. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. XI, James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 177.
Latin text: et non pro nostris tantum. set etiam pro totius mundi peccatis; Aecclesiam mundi nomine appellat. Expositio In Epistolas Catholiicas, Incipit Epistola Sancti Iohannis Apostoli, Cap. II, v. 2, PL Supp. 3:118.

Augustine (354-430): 2. But alongside of this love we ought also patiently to endure the hatred of the world. For it must of necessity hate those whom it perceives recoiling from that which is loved by itself. But the Lord supplies us with special consolation from His own case, when, after saying, “These things I command you, that ye love one another,” He added, “If the world hate you, know that it hated me before [it hated] you.” Why then should the member exalt itself above the head? Thou refusest to be in the body if thou art unwilling to endure the hatred of the world along with the Head. “If ye were of the world,” He says, “the world would love its own.” He says this, of course, of the whole Church, which, by itself, He frequently also calls by the name of the world: as when it is said, “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself.” And this also: “The Son of man came not to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.” And John says in his epistle: “We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also [for those] of the whole world.” The whole world then is the Church, and yet the whole world hateth the Church. The world therefore hateth the world, the hostile that which is reconciled, the condemned that which is saved, the polluted that which is cleansed.
3. But that world which God is in Christ reconciling unto Himself, which is saved by Christ, and has all its sins freely pardoned by Christ, has been chosen out of the world that is hostile, condemned, and defiled. For out of that mass, which has all perished in Adam, are formed the vessels of mercy, whereof that world of reconciliation is composed, that is hated by the world which belongeth to the vessels of wrath that are formed out of the same mass and fitted to destruction. Finally, after saying, “If ye were of the world, the world would love its own,” He immediately added, “But because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” And so these men were themselves also of that world, and, that they might no longer be of it, were chosen out of it, through no merit of their own, for no good works of theirs had preceded; and not by nature, which through free-will had become totally corrupted at its source: but gratuitously, that is, of actual grace. For He who chose the world out of the world, effected for Himself, instead of finding, what He should choose: for “there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace. And if by grace,” he adds, “then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.” NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate LXXXVII, §2-3, John 15:17-19.

Augustine (354-430): Hence things that are lawful are not all good, but everything unlawful is not good. Just as everyone redeemed by Christ’s blood is a human being, but human beings are not all redeemed by Christ’s blood, so too everything that is unlawful is not good, but things that are not good are not all unlawful. As we learn from the testimony of the apostle, there are some things that are lawful but are not good. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Works of Saint Augustine, Adulterous Marriages, Part 1, Vol. 9, trans. Ray Kearney, O.P., Book One, 15, 16 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1999), p. 153.

Chrysostom (349-407) on Hebrews 9:28. “So Christ was once offered.”: By whom offered? evidently by Himself. Here he says that He is not Priest only, but Victim also, and what is sacrificed. On this account are [the words] “was offered.” “Was once offered” (he says) “to bear the sins of many.” Why “of many,” and not “of all”? Because not all believed, For He died indeed for all, that is His part: for that death was a counterbalance against the destruction of all men. But He did not bear the sins of all men, because they were not willing. NPNF1: Vol. XIV, Epistle to the Hebrews, Homly 17.

Prosper of Aquitaine (d. 463): He is not crucified with Christ who is not a member of the body of Christ. When, therefore, our Saviour is said to be crucified for the redemption of the whole world, because of his true assumption of the human nature, yet may he be said to be crucified only for them unto whom his death was profitable. . . . Diverse from these is their lot who are reckoned amongst them of whom is is said, ‘the world knew him not.’
Latin text: Non est autem crucifixus in Christo, qui non est membrum corporis Christi, nec est membrum corporis Christi, qui non per aquam et Spiritum sanctum induit Christum. Qui ideo in infirmitate nostra communionem subiit mortis, ut nos in virtute ejus haberemus consortium resurrectionis. Cum itaque rectissime dicatur Salvator pro totius mundi redemptione crucifixus, propter veram humanae naturae susceptionem, et propter communem in primo homine omnium perditionem: potest tamen dici pro his tantum crucifixus quibus mors ipsius profuit. . . . Diversa ergo ab istis sors eorum est qui inter illos censentur de quibus dicitur; Mundus eum non cognovit. Responsiones ad Capitula Gallorum, Capitulum IX, Responsio, PL 51:165.

Prosper of Aquitaine (d. 463): Doubtless the propriety of redemption is theirs from whom the prince of this world is cast out. The death of Christ is not to be so laid out for human-kind, that they also should belong unto his redemption who were not to be regenerated.
Latin text: Redemptionis proprietas haud dubie penes illos est, de quibus princeps mundi missus est foras, et jam non vasa diaboli, sed membra sunt Christi. Cujus mors non ita impensa est humano generi, ut ad redemptionem ejus etiam qui regenerandi non erant pertinerint. Responsiones ad Capitula Objectionum Vincentianarum, Capitulum Primum, Responsio, PL 51:178.

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466) commenting on Hebrews 9:27-28: As it is appointed for each human being to die once, and the one who accepts death’s decree no longer sins but awaits the examination of what was done in life, so Christ the Lord, after being offered once for us and taking up our sins, will come to us again, with sin no longer in force, that is, with sin no longer occupying a place as far as human beings are concerned. He said himself, remember, when he still had a mortal body, “He committed no sin, nor was guile found in his mouth.” It should be noted, of course, that he bore the sins of many, not of all: not all came to faith, so he removed the sins of the believers only. Robert Charles Hill, Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, Vol. 2 (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001), p. 175.

Bede (672/673-735) commenting on 1 John 2:1: The Lord intercedes for us not by words but by his dying compassion, because he took upon himself the sins which he was unwilling to condemn his elect for. On 1 John. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. XI, James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 177.
Latin text: Interpellat ergo pro nobis Dominus, non voce, sed miseratione, quia quod damnare in electis noluit, suscipiendo servavit. In Primam Epistolam S. Joannis, Caput II, PL 93:89.

Bede (672/673-735) commenting on 1 John 2:2: In his humanity Christ pleads for our sins before the Father, but in his divinity he has propitiated them for us with the Father. Furthermore, he has not done this only for those who were alive at the time of his death, but also for the whole church which is scattered over the full compass of the world, and it will be valid for everyone, from the very first among the elect until the last one who will be born at the end of time. This verse is therefore a rebuke to the Donatists, who thought that the true church was to be found only in Africa. The Lord pleads for the sins of the whole world, because the church which he has bought with his blood exists in every corner of the globe. On 1 John. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. XI, James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 178.
Latin text: Qui per humanitatem interpellat pro nobis apud Patrem, idem per divinitatem propitiatur nobis cum Patre. . . . Non pro illis solum propitiatio est Dominus, quibus tunc in carne viventibus scribebat Joannes, sed etiam pro omni Ecclesia quae per totam mundi latitudinem diffusa est, primo nimirum electo usque ad ultimum qui in fine mundi nasciturus est porrecta. Quibus verbis Donatistarum schisma reprobat, qui in Africae solum finibus Ecclesiam Christi esse dicebant inclusam. Pro totius ergo mundi peccatis interpellat Dominus, quia per totum mundum est Ecclesia, quam suo sanguine comparavit. In Primam Epistolam S. Joannis, Caput II, PL 93:90.

We know that King would be wrong to assume that both Prosper and Augustine held to a limited redemption/expiation position.  We can concede that Bede and others adopted Augustine’s interpretation of the world as the church in 1 Jn 2:2, as that in no way proves limited redemption/expiation.  Let us also grant that for Ambrose, and others, he claimedthat “world” sometimes in Scripture had what he called a “special universality,” that is, sometimes it meant the church scattered throughout the world. However, we also know that Ambrose did believe that Christ paid a redemptive price for all the world, that he died for all mankind, etc. So we know, therefore, that evidence of this “special universality” is not, in itself, proof that Ambrose (or anyone else adopting the same idea), denied that Christ properly died for all men.

What is more: Let us just grant, just for now, that certain other Patristics cited here did in fact entirely believe that Christ only died for the elect. If folk like Turretinfan and others want to kling to Bede and Theodoret and others, well… oooh… that’s a big deal, :-) …I guess I am really worried now. ;-)

With all that preamble, and humor aside, what I want to do specifically is take a look at just one quotation and see if the original author really said what he appears to be saying in the above quotation.

Let us take a look at Chrysostom.  The comment adduced is this:

“So Christ was once offered.”: By whom offered? evidently by Himself. Here he says that He is not Priest only, but Victim also, and what is sacrificed. On this account are [the words] “was offered.” “Was once offered” (he says) “to bear the sins of many.” Why “of many,” and not “of all”? Because not all believed, For He died indeed for all, that is His part: for that death was a counterbalance against the destruction of all men. But He did not bear the sins of all men, because they were not willing.

Here is an example of out-of-context quote mining and proof-texting.  It does look as if this author is saying that Christ did not bear the sin of all men, even though he says Christ did die for all. But now, if we add the following paragraph, everything changes:

And what is [the meaning of] “He bare the sins”? Just as in the Oblation we bear up our sins and say, “Whether we have sinned voluntarily or involuntarily, do Thou forgive,” that is, we make mention of them first, and then ask for their forgiveness. So also was it done here. Where has Christ done this? Hear Himself saying, “And for their sakes I sanctify Myself.” ( John xvii. 19.) Lo! He bore the sins. He took them from men, and bore them to the Father; not that He might determine anything against them [mankind], but that He might forgive them. “Unto them that look for Him shall He appear” (he says) “the second time without sin unto salvation.” What is “without sin”? it is as much as to say, He sinneth not. For neither did He die as owing the debt of death, nor yet because of sin. But how “shall He appear”? To punish, you say. He did not however say this, but what was cheering; “shall He appear unto them that look for Him, without sin unto  salvation.” So that for the time to come they no longer need sacrifices to save hemselves, but to do this by deeds. [Underlining mine.]

When read in context, Chrysostom asks the question: ‘what does it mean to not bear their sin?’ For him, in this context at least, it means he does not forgive them.  That is, to bear another’s sins, for Chrysostom, was was of such a nature that the result is forgiveness. Now how Chrysostom got to that is another story. We may never be exactly sure. Chrysostom is not advocating the position that Christ only died for the elect alone, aka Limited Atonement in the modern sense.

From this example alone, we can see the danger of relying on secondary sources, and/or not engaging in proper historical investigation. The irony here is that it is Turretinfan, and his side, so often accuse us of taking our sources out of context. We are the ones, they allege, who cherry-pick and quote-mine. At least though, we do not rely on someone else’s hard work. :-)

If the uber-apologists want to be our guides, the we need to be on our guard.

David

Advertisements
11 Comments leave one →
  1. Joelcdn permalink
    May 26, 2009 5:30 pm

    I know that this isn’t probably the place for general questions but, I stumbled on this site after goggling different views on the atonement within reformed circles.I am not a calvinist, but am studying reformed theology, my question would be, does this site hold to the 5 points, affirming limited atonement, but with just a different take? Or would the site owner consider themselves as a 4 pointer? Are you a confessional calvinist?

    More then one question I know, but I am surprised to see that the atonement is debated within calvinism. I am just sort of in the dark on the whole subject I guess. Thank you

  2. Josh permalink
    May 26, 2009 5:45 pm

    I am sure David will respond with a more in depth comment. This site holds to a full Calvinism but we see the L (limited atonement) in today’s Calvinism as incomplete and to narrowly focused. The classical view (pre-Calvin) that Calvin held recognized that Christ’s death had more purpose and design than securing salvation for the elect (which it certainly does as well.)

  3. Flynn permalink*
    May 27, 2009 10:47 am

    hey Joel,

    You say:
    I know that this isn’t probably the place for general questions but, I stumbled on this site after goggling different views on the atonement within reformed circles.I am not a calvinist, but am studying reformed theology, my question would be, does this site hold to the 5 points, affirming limited atonement, but with just a different take? Or would the site owner consider themselves as a 4 pointer? Are you a confessional calvinist?

    David: Historically there were different trajectories within Calvinism. You mention TULIP. TULIP as a mnemonic was probably invented or coined about the turn-of-the-century. It was made popular by Loraine Boettner. With regard to the L, the focus in TULIP is essentially negative: it is a statement about who Christ did not die for.

    However, even that stress on a negation has a long history in 17th century Calvinism.

    For more on the history of this, go here: Horticulture and Theology: Uprooting an old T.U.L.I.P.?

    An earlier trajectory, one which also came to exist side-by-side with the categorical negative emphasis, was the view that the death of Christ has a dual aspect. Christ died for all men, as to the sufficiency of the expiation, satisfaction and redemption. That is, Christ bore the curse of the law that was due to all men (unlimited imputation). However, as to the intention to effectually save, Christ died for the elect especially.

    Thus in this early Augustinian trajectory, which the original Reformers embraced, the nature of the expiation, imputation, and satisfaction, is unlimited. However, the intention in making this unlimited expiation was manifold. With regard to the elect, the intention was the infallible salvation of the elect. With regard to the non-elect, Christ seeks their salvation as an expression of his compassion and nature, along the lines of the Revealed Will.

    In the later TULIP type trajectory, exemplified by men like John Owen, Francis Turretin and others, there is only one proper intention which limits the nature, itself, of the expiation and imputation. This is the view you are probably more familiar with. Thus, only the sins of the elect were imputed to Christ. Christ was only punished for their sins. Penally, he only represented the persons of the elect. And the intention, being categorically single, Christ only sought the salvation of the elect.

    You say: More then one question I know, but I am surprised to see that the atonement is debated within calvinism. I am just sort of in the dark on the whole subject I guess. Thank you

    David: Actually, in the minds of some, we are engaged in a life and death struggle over this. I say that with some humor and with some truth. Most of those who follow the strictures of the TULIP trajectory maintain that TULIP, even in its early forms, is the only true representative of Calvinism. There is no other Calvinism other than TULIP. Anything other than TULIP is heretical, at worst, simply confessional deviancy at best.

    Some of us are pushing back against that sectarian (even cultic thinking in some cases) thinking by showing the historicity of the older Augustinian view in the theology of the original Reformers. You can find this documentation here: Meta-Links (Indexes)

    So to your questions: if by limited atonement you mean that Christ died with an especial intention to infallibly save the elect, then we hold to it, as this is exactly Dort’s teaching.

    If by limited atonement, you mean that the very nature of the expiation, imputation, and satisfaction is limited, such that Christ only bore the sins of the elect, was only punished for them, along with a categorically singular intention to save the elect, then we do not hold to that form of “limited atonement” which itself goes beyond Dort.

    Feel free to ask any questions, or scope out the various blogs affiliated with our position. You should also scope out the blogs of our detractors if you are interested: in order to get information from both sides of the debate.

    Thanks for commenting,
    David

  4. Joelcdn permalink
    May 27, 2009 12:30 pm

    Thank you Josh and David for clearing up some confusion on my part. I understand now where you are coming from. In hearing calvinists before, they would never tell a sinner that Christ died for them, which I think is wrong and one wonders how would they go about preaching the gospel? The “l” has been the one area that has held me back in the past in pursing study into reformed theology, but in seeing there is also a dual sense in understanding it, is very encouraging. Thank you for your time guy.

  5. Flynn permalink*
    May 27, 2009 2:44 pm

    Hey there Joel,

    Yeah, we here have spotted the same code language. A strict TULIPer can say Christ died for sinners, but they really mean that in some sort of abstract third person. They cannot mean it in the second person concrete: say the particular sinner standing in front of them, cos they don’t know that.

    They can speak in the abstract, but not identify any given sinner. The lego-Calvinist can only think privately to himself, that Christ might have died for someone.

    We think verses like 1 Cor 15:1-7 and Luke 22:20. The idea that the “our” in 1 Cor 15:3 was not part of his original gospel message which Paul spoke to them while they were unbelievers is non-credible. And Jesus to us seems to include Judas in Luke 22:20.

    There are other verses, but we find the arguments that try to explain these two verses away to be very very very implausible (understatement). Lego-Calvinism fails on so many different levels, exegetical, logical and historical.

    David
    Calvin and Calvinism

  6. Josh permalink
    May 27, 2009 4:23 pm

    Man! I thought my summery was good, till I read David’s

  7. June 11, 2009 11:07 am

    David,

    Wow, that explanation is really helpful. That’s the best and clearest delineation of limited atonement I’ve found so far. I’m glad Joelcdn asked this question because the answer put a few more pieces of the puzzle together for me.

    Based on this, we could certainly say to any person, “Christ died for your sins.” And based on universal benefits such as delayed judgment, we can say to any person, “Christ died for you.” But perhaps it would be wrong to say to an unbeliever, “Christ died to save you,” because that touches on intent?

    I’m still sorting all of this out, but what you’ve said here really helps.

  8. Flynn permalink*
    June 11, 2009 9:06 pm

    Hey Derek,

    Glad you liked the answer.

    To your last comment about dying to save, what do you think about this then:

    NAU John 12:47 “If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 “He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.

    David: What Jesus says here is powerful, yet so many miss it. Firstly, we see a logical relationship between the hypothetical objector. The question we must ask: why does Jesus not condemn this objector? The answer is: Jesus came into the world, not to condemn the world, but to save the world. The conclusion is, the objector is part of the world, the very world which Jesus came to save.

    Now of course a really really bad and insincere move is to do what John Gill and John Owen tried to do by making the world 2 or 3 different things. So, if we go back to 3:17, Jesus did not come into the physical world, to condemn the repobate world, but to save the elect world. I will track down the sources later.

    On a normal and sane reading of this verse, its impossible to limit the kosmos to the elect, at the very least. However, the text therefore goes further and speaks of Christ’s mission to save the world.

    What do you think?
    Thanks,
    David

  9. June 12, 2009 7:47 am

    David,

    That’s a thought provoking bit of exegesis. I can’t argue with John 3:17, though it is exceedingly difficult to reconcile. It certainly seems to speak of an intent on Christ’s part to save the world, there is no denying that.

    The fact that Owen and Gill re-interpreted this passage in such a blatantly erroneous manner only proves how potent the passage is as a refutation of their position on the atonement.

    Apparently, there is a universal intent as well as a universal extent to the atonement. This adds a whole new dimension to my studies in this area. Lots to think about.

    Thanks,
    Derek

  10. July 21, 2009 2:16 pm

    Thank you for your refutation of Turretinfan’s video on limited atonement from the fathers. That they taught that would be absurd, especially since Chrysostom also advocates usage of the free will in deification…something I’m pretty sure Turretinfan and the majority of Western Christians do not accept (though because they don’t necessarily understand).

    I also couldn’t find any of the references, either I didn’t have them, or in the Augustine case, he didn’t say where it was from. Limited atonement was potentially taught by Gottschalk of Orbais, and he was deemed a heretic during the Carolingian Renaissance…so it’s hard for me to imagine a church father, in context, REALLY arguing for the L of TULIP.

  11. Flynn permalink*
    July 21, 2009 2:52 pm

    Hey Chris,

    You can find more material on the patristics and medieval fathers here: Meta-Links (Indexes) as well as the early Reformers, and many Puritans.

    Turretinfan’s citations are all open to question. Some are just outright incorrect. Some are beside the point. For example, we know that Augustine could say that Judas and the whole world were redeemed, and yet limit the reading of 1 John 2:2 to the church scattered throughout the world. Hence we can discern that a limited reading of 1 John 2:2 is not, of itself, proof that a given theologian (father or divine) held to limited expiation/imputation.

    Also his citation of Jerome are questionable too. Again for a similar reason. Just because a given theologian took a limited reading of “the many” (from Isa 53 etc) this, similarly, does not argue for limited expiation/imputation. We have quite a few counter-factuals for this to prove that. What is more, the sentence immediately preceding the quotation is left out which could change everything. The real Turretin did the same thing by leaving out that critical line too.

    The original list TFan provided was from my old friend, David King. What is more, David King got some of those from other secondary sources which are open to challenge.

    The earliest one can find limited expiation/imputation is in Gottschalk (as you know). The idea was not taught by Ambrose or Augustine. It was rejected by Prosper, who was for centuries considered Augustine’s true and authoritative interpreter. It was rejected by Bernard (against Gottschalk). Bernard was well respected by many early Reformers. Limited expiation/imputation was not taught by Lombard, Aquinas, and so on, rather the contrary was affirmed. Limited expiation/imputation does not make a reappearance until Beza as far as we can gather. I say Beza because quite a lot of the modern secondary sources identify Beza as the earliest source. Bucer is questionable, contrary to the claims of Rainbow. Neither Luther or Calvin, of course, taught it but affirmed the contrary.

    If you go to the index at the C&C site, check out the file on Kimedoncius.

    Thanks for stopping by,
    David

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: