This year, my wife and I were privileged to attend the 2017 annual ETS (Evangelical Theological Society) meeting in Providence RI. One of the true highlights was to see my friend Dr. David Allen of SWBTS. If you haven’t read it, Dr. Allen’s seminal work on the extent of the Atonement is an absolute “must-read” for anyone wishing to interact with the issues surrounding debates on the extent of Christ’s atonement. Because his work is primarily historical theology (though in the process plenty of exegetical work gets done as well) it is an invaluable tool for dismantling prevailing myths about how B
aptists and Calvinistic Baptists in particular (though Dr. Allen would not characterize himself as Calvinistic) have understood this vital topic.
Dr. Allen’s paper at ETS is a short but potent digest dealing specifically with the research done on Clavin’s own view of the extent of the aotnement. It is drawn from material in the larger book. The content will surprise many, no doubt anger a few, but inform all who spend the time to read it. It is a mere 20 pages but it is jam-packed with research and solid information. Agree or disagree, it is powerful, thought provoking, worthwhile and important. The link below will take to the paper which he has kindly allowed me to post here. ENJOY!
Allen ETS Paper – Calvin and the Extent of the Atonement
The Book I wanted to write – but BETTER!
At the outset, let me say that this tome is a scholarly tour de force by one of the best friends a conscientious Calvinist can find anywhere.
David Allen serves as the dean of the School of Preaching, distinguished professor of preaching, director of the Southwestern Center for Expository Preaching and George W. Truett Chair of Ministry at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. He was previously Dean of the School of Theology from 2004-2016. He received the B.A. at Criswell College (1978), Master of Divinity at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (1981), and Ph.D. in Humanities with a Major in Linguistics from The University of Texas at Arlington (1987).
And, in the interest of full disclosure, let me state up front that I am a recovering High-Calvinist. Lest that term confuse you, Dr. Allen gives some helpful definitions near the beginning of his massive and vitally important work on the extent of the atonement of Jesus Christ.
The main factions in the debate as he lists them in the introduction (noting also that each have nuances within their camps) are as follows –
Arminianism: Christ suffers for the sins of all mankind with an equal intent to save all people.
Classic/Moderate Calvinism: Christ suffers for the sins of all mankind, but with an unequal intent/will to save all people.
High Calvinism: Christ only suffers for the sins of the elect because of his singular intent.
Hyper-Calvinism: Christ only suffers for the sins of the elect because of his singular intent.
What separates the last two is brought out numerous places within the book, but has mostly to do with the latter rejecting the free offer of the Gospel.
That said – let me plunge in.
Part 1 of the book surveys the extent of the atonement in Church history. It is divided into 4 sections – covering all the major player who may have written on the topic in: 1. The Early & Medieval Era; 2. The Reformation Era; 3. The Post-Reformation Era; and 4. The Modern Era.
Part 2 is comprised of 3 chapters focusing on the extent of the atonement in the Baptist tradition. Once again surveying most of the key writers and preachers on the atonement among: 1. English General and Particular Baptists; 2. North American Baptists; and 3. Southern Baptists. Being a Southern Baptist himself, this is of particular interest to Dr. Allen, but by no means indicates a short shrift of the others.
Part 3 is in 2 parts. First is a detailed critical review of every chapter of the highly acclaimed Crossway volume “From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective.” The 2nd is a concluding chapter titled: “Why Belief in Unlimited Atonement Matters.”
And let me tell you, that this book soars. It soars conclusively (in my estimation) in securing the reality that an unlimited atonement in extent, NOT application, has been the majority report throughout ecclesiastical history; the majority report among the early Reformers – including Calvin; and was the main expression on the question of the atonement until the encroachment of a strict limitarian view was espoused by Beza, and championed (perhaps) most by John Owen.
The historical evidence is so overwhelming that the Owenic view was not and never has been “The” Reformed view, as to be virtually incontrovertible. Now as Dr. Allen notes, counting noses isn’t how we do sound theology. We go back to the text of Scripture for that. But it does drive us to consider how so many for so long – solidly IN the Reformed tradition, rejected a strict either/or construct (Jesus either died for all OR for the elect) in favor of a both/and construct, speaking to an unlimited atonement when considered in and of itself, with the reality of a particularistic application of it by God’s sovereign choice.
Of particular interest in this line is how the extent of the atonement was the most hotly debated topic at the Synod of Dordt, and how both Dordt’s statements and the Westminster’s were written with a measure of intentional ambiguity to allow for those on both sides of this question to sign them in clear conscience.
All along the way in these chapters, Dr. Allen proves himself to be the consummate myth-buster. Strict limited atonement is THE Reformed position – busted. Amyrault was a heretic – busted. Amyraldianism is nor Reformed – busted. Strict limited atonement came first – busted. All of the Reformers held to strict limited atonement – busted. (You will be shocked to find out just how many of those you thought held to limited atonement – didn’t.) British hypothetical universalism was Amyraldian – busted. So-called 4-point Calvinism is Arminianism – busted. Universal or unlimited atonement must result in universalism – busted! On and on and on.
In fact, my own journey out of being a high Calvinist to becoming a Moderate/Classical Calvinist years ago, was one of being disabused of many of these myths as I went. Myths that when taken in composite can so jade and confuse, as to make you question sound exegesis simply on the force of how all these men can’t be wrong – even when repeating common errors over and over. How I wish I has had access then to “The Extent of the Atonement: A Historical and Critical Review” by Dr. David Allen. But I do now, and so do you.
So as to prevent this review from being as long as the book itself (a hefty 848 pages) let me point out what I think are the key strong points, and offer a suggestion for those who want a quicker handle on it all.
What the book does over and over and over again, is address the principle arguments for a strict limitarian view, both exegetically and logically – and examines how non-limitarians have addressed those same Scripture passages and logic. In the process, by virtue of its unique structure, you get hear dozens of Reformed voices argue against limitarianism. None, surrendering election, or particularization in the application of the atonement. All, in necessary and clarifying context.
Thus there is a constant reminder not to confound the accomplishment of the atonement with its application.
Repeated warnings not to buy into a mere instrinsic sufficiency in the atonement as opposed to extrinsic sufficiency.
Over and over again the negative inference fallacy is exposed, rejected and properly defeated.
The commercial and pecuniary foundation of so much of Owen’s thinking is debunked.
The weight placed by so many on the “distributive” versus universal use of “all” is demythologized and properly contexualized each in its proper place.
The fallacy in Owen’s famous trilemma is exposed and the illogic dismantled.
How the limitarian view severely discounts justification by faith in its proper place and time.
And in every place, the centrality of this to the right preaching of the Gospel take its rightful place front and center.
All this by voice after voice after voice among our Reformed brethren.
Now maybe you are not going to wade through all 848 – pages, and that with some chapters offering in excess of 800 end notes! I hear your cry. Though I bid you to do it anyway, both for your education and your soul.
But if you want the shortcut – here is my recommendation. If you only read the detailed refutation of John Owen’s The Death of Death in Christ, in the section bearing his name, and, the section on David Schrock, you will interact with all of the pertinent Scriptures and arguments from the strict limitarian view, and all of the key corrections in exegesis and logic in showing the error of that view. These two alone are worth the price of the book, and a couple of evenings in deep reading and reflection. They will change you.
David Allen has done an invaluable service to the Body of Christ as a whole, and to Calvinists especially in a critical time in American Christianity. As he said to me in a brief meeting at the recent ETS gathering in San Antonio – (paraphrasing) “I did not write this book against Calvinists, but to make my Calvinist brothers BETTER Calvinists.” That spirit breathes on every page of this book – and spoke to me that way before I ever met the good Doctor.
I had wanted to write this book every since my own study led me out of strict limitarianism. But I’m glad I didn’t. Because here, it is done so much better. May God be pleased to use it as a much needed corrective in the current swell of interest in Reformed theology. For some, it will give you the permission you’ve been seeking to preach the Gospel the way you know you should have, all along. To the glory of God and the good of His Church.
1 Peter Part 14c
1 Peter 3:13-22
Baptism Saves You?
AUDIO FOR THIS SERMON CAN BE FOUND HERE
Last time we were together, we really had to put our thinking caps on to sort out the difficult ideas in vss. 18-19 / 1 Peter 3:18–19 “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison,”
You will remember the idea here appears to be that The Spirit that raised Jesus from the Dead – the Holy Spirit, was at work even back in Noah’s day. That we could say Jesus was preaching through Noah to those who were about to enter the Flood, and that even though the results were very little – only 8 souls were saved – it was still God at work and WE can take great comfort in our day when the Gospel seems to have little impact.
Peter has been making this point over and over; that HOW we respond to persecution and marginalization by the culture – is once again a means of preaching the Gospel by the power of the Spirit – and that we ought not to lose heart even when we don’t see lots of results. God is still at work!
And in making that argument, Peter is going to enlarge our understanding of how the Gospel works in one of the most graphic similes in the Bible. It is a powerful and useful picture.
And by virtue of how Peter places this before us, I want to speak especially to you here today who have not yet come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. For this is a Gospel saturated passage and one the I pray will open the eyes of any here who might still be lost in the face of Christ’s coming judgment upon mankind for sin.
The text: 1 Peter 3:18–22 “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.”
Once again we have to be careful in not letting a difficult verse become the basis for a doctrine all on its own. Sadly, this verse has been used by many to claim that water baptism is necessary in order for someone to be saved. Or, that baptism itself – somehow saves.
However, a careful reading of the text, and seeing what point Peter is making and how he makes it, clearly rules out the idea that this is what the passage is teaching.
6 Observations:
What is the THIS, that baptism corresponds to?
“THIS”, is the scenario Peter just outlined from the Genesis flood account.
Somehow – Water Baptism corresponds to the key factors that were at play in Noah’s day – while God waited 120 years to send the flood, and while Noah preached (righteousness – 2 Pet. 2:5) and built the Ark.
We can easily tease out 4 key facts in that scenario:
Hebrews 11:7 (ESV) “By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.”
This is how we arrive at a good conscience before God – because Jesus was raised up from the dead, proving our sin was atoned for and that we can have a conscience devoid of condemnation over past sin.
More – He has endured the judgment, and risen again, and if we are IN HIM, we are saved.
So the simile Peter uses plays out to its fullest: Jesus is the “Ark” of our salvation.
All of this then is a most wonderful picture of how salvation works – AND, of a dreadfully missing component in the Gospel message so often neglected in our day – JUDGMENT.
Romans 2:12–16 (ESV) For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
This aspect of being delivered from God’s just wrath is absolutely central to the Gospel presentations in the NT. And it is often neglected, if not completely absent from much of modern preaching of the Gospel. We try to declare good news (Gospel) without any BAD NEWS! Guilt and sin and shame.
Acts 17:29–31 (ESV) Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. 30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”
Just as the Spirit of Christ preached that same coming judgment and God’s means of salvation through His preacher in the days of Noah
Just as that message, both of judgment and salvation has been preached by the Spirit of Christ in every generation after
And just as Paul preached that coming judgment in his day, as we have it in this text
So it is we today must declare to the world that this judgment of God is yet to come upon all mankind.
2 Corinthians 5:10 (ESV) For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.
Matthew 12:36 (ESV) I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak,
Hebrews 4:12–13 (ESV) For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
You see, this is the great dilemma of all mankind – this is what makes the Cross of Jesus necessary, and rational: “For ALL have sinned…”Romans 3:21–25 (ESV) But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
What is our great sin? We fall short of the glory of God in it.
We were created to reflect Him and all His perfections
We were made “in His image”
And we must ask – Is God in all of His divine glory and perfections seen in me without flaw?
For that is the purpose for which we were created and the lofty place from which we’ve fallen.
Is my every action one that displays His holiness?
Is my every word one which declares His holiness in perfection?
Is my every thought in perfect submission to His plan and purposes?
Is the foremost love in my heart love of Him and His glory?
Do I serve Him consciously and joyfully and perfectly more than myself?
If not – Then how can I hope to be spared His wrath?
How can I possibly be reconciled to Him since I have spurned His love and lived for myself and for my own desires and have become so separated from Him in every way?
Hear the message – there is judgment coming – yes!
But there is also salvation to be had in His Ark – in faith in Jesus Christ!
I must believe that He has made a way and that way is to trust His Son as my sin bearer on Calvary – that He endured MY judgment there. That I deserved what He took.
And putting my faith in Christ and Christ alone – I now follow Him.
So it is in Baptism, I declare that Jesus was crucified in my place, rose up from the dead and ascended in Heaven above all powers and authorities.
He went THROUGH the judgment safely, and if I am IN HIM, so will I!
And my conscience is cleared by His having satisfied my debt to the Father – I am now reconciled to The Father through The Son, and with all who believe.
This is what Baptism signifies.
And though comparatively few are saved in this way – that in no way diminishes that this salvation is real and magnificent and full of mercy and grace that is unfathomable.
(21) Baptism, “corresponds to this”. Corresponds to what?
Hebrews 11:7 (ESV) “By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.”
So, as our key text tells us:
Baptism which corresponds to this – To Noah having heard the Word of God and being saved from God’s wrath by believing and acting up it –
now saves you
Not through the removal of dirt from the body – NOT THROUGH THE PHYSICAL ACT OF BAPTISM
But an appeal to God for a good conscience – Having heard, believed and acted upon the message ourselves
Through the resurrection of Jesus Christ – by testifying to our faith in Jesus who has undergone God’s wrath against sin, so that if we are IN HIM – we might remain safe.
I am most grateful for The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals for posting this interview in the latest edition of Reformation 21. It it is a truly welcome addition to the discussion.
When I took up a “both/and” view – that there is both particularism AND universalism in the atonement – many of my good brothers and sisters thought I had strayed from the Reformed fold.
I knew better both from my Bible study and from my historical study – but it scared enough of them to bring about much division.
I thank the Lord for further discussion and clarity on the topic.
This excellent interview can be found HERE.
My friend Tony Byrne over at the THEOLOGICAL MEDITATIONS blog posted a wonderful and useful quote today. It’s worth your time. CLICK HERE! or on the image, or the link in the blog name.
No doubt, someone will find my having links to something by Tony and James White side-by-side ironic. But, I’ve got brothers I love everywhere in Christ’s family.
Yesterday I posted the link to Dom’s 5 article in his series on “universal atonement” – today is the second post – part 6. Hope that isn’t too confusing.
I will make my pitch once again however for better language. The atonement is NOT universal in that sense that ALL are saved. None who fail to believe will be saved. And there is NO atonement for the fallen angels. Nor is it unlimited in the sense that all sins are already forgiven. It is unlimited in its capacity to save all should all believe, nor is there any sin which it is insufficient to meet. And, it is universal in that there is no human being to whom the genuine offer of salvation cannot (or should not) be made.
That said…In this part, Dominic rightly gets to the heart of 3 very important matters in this entire discussion, which I have been talking about since the first posting of my own atonement musings.
1. Eternal justification is a virtually inescapable conclusion to arrive at, if one holds to the popularized version of “limited atonement”.
2. We cannot let our theological rationalizations operate in such a way that for all intents and purposes, justification by faith – becomes little more than a cliche, and not an actual necessity in salvation. Because the atonement is the means whereby unbelief is forgiven, does not mean that one (even of the elect) has already crossed over from unbelief to saving faith at the time/space history point of Jesus’ death on the Cross. Scripture never separates faith and justification.
3. The accomplishment of the atonement at Calvary does not automatically bestow faith upon the elect at that moment. We absolutely must make proper room for the Holy Spirit to work the grace of regeneration in the heart of the person through the ordinary means of the preaching of the Gospel. We cannot simply make the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit unnecessary.
To fail to deal with each of these in their order and importance is to create an artificial plan of salvation which does not square with the whole of the Scriptural counsel on the matte. It creates a scheme out of some genuine aspects, but omits several others resulting in a skewed view.
I am still not a fan of the term “universal atonement” – in that the term (in my small brain) conveys something of application. I.e. universal implies on some level true effectiveness actually acquired or participated in by all. Maybe I just need to get over the language issue. One dictionary states its first definition universal as: “Of, relating to, extending to, or affecting the entire world or all within the world; worldwide: “This discovery of literature has as yet only partially penetrated the universal consciousness” (Ellen Key).” So while I hold that the atonement is universally “applicable” (the way John Davenant most often says it) I tend to shy away from calling it a “universal atonement”. I still prefer either an “unlimited” atonement (there is no sin which cannot be forgiven on the basis of it without violating God’s justice) or perhaps an “objective” atonement – it is “real” and yet is not “applied.”
As I’ve stated many times before and in other places, I do not think of myself as a 4-Point Calvinist (though I’ve since stopped thinking that’s necessarily a bad thing) but prefer to describe myself as a 6-pointer: That there is both a particular aspect to the atonement (in God’s intent regarding the elect) and a universal or unlimited aspect in the genuine offer of the atonement’s benefits to all in the preaching of the Gospel, God’s desire for all men to be saved, and some of the benefits of the atonement which do impact all of mankind.
OK – all of my (probably unnecessary) qualifications aside – Dominic Bnonn Tennant’s latest post on Universal Atonement is truly superb reading. Clear, concise, Biblical, rational and I believe – correct. Check it our for yourself.
The THEOLOGY ON LINE blog has an excellent entry today on the false either/or dilemma in the debate on the extent of Christ’s atonement. It quotes a particulalry pertinent section from Nathaniel Hardy’s Commentary on the Gospel of John – 1865.
those of us who embrace this point of view are often accused of inventing something “new.” Alas, ’tis not so. Nor is it Arminian nor even Amyraldian. Check out this short but excellent read. There is no reason that the discussion over the extend of the atonement has to remain deadlocked in an absolute either/or dichotomy, when we can have a perfectly plausible both/and construct which harmonizes ALL of the passages on the atonement. I want Hershey’s AND Reese’s!
Theology is a glorious thing. Of all the gifts given to man by our God, the ability and the call to search out our Lord and His ways is a treasure of inestimable value. One I think could well be the central occupation of the redeemed for all eternity. What a joy and privilege to begin then here. It is a foretaste of Heaven.
About two years ago, I put together a paper for the other elders where I pastor. This was to give them some sense of an investigation I’d launched into the doctrine of Limited Atonement. The more I had studied historical Calvinism, the more I saw that there was a continuing discussion on the topic. I especially discovered that this was not a doctrine which had a monolithic consensus among those self-consciously committed to the “doctrines of grace.” At various times certain stricter or less strict views were held by a majority, but even then with shades and nuances. None but the most ardent of truly “hyper-Calvinists” (a technical term worth researching) would deny that there is to be a free offer of the Gospel to all men. And yet, men like John Bunyan argued that if we posit that there truly is nothing to offer some men, since Christ in fact did not die for them (even though we do not know who they are) then our offer is somewhat disingenuous. Some answer, we can say for instance “Christ died for sinners”, and leave it at that. This if course is true. But I am not convinced such an approach encompasses the broader spectrum of Biblical constructs concerning the Gospel and its relationship to the atonement of Christ on Calvary. As Andrew Fuller would put it: “If the atonement of Christ excluded a part of mankind in the same sense as it excludes fallen angels, Why is the gospel addressed to the one, any more than to the other?” (the Gospel Worthy of all Acceptation – pg. 113).
Deep down there remains a tension. Not that it is wrong to have such tensions. The Bible has a number of them. I in fact argue for a tension too. I believe it belongs in a different location than where it is normally placed among the so-called 5-point Calvinists I’m most familiar with (living and dead). Recognizing this tension has led to books from the likes of the venerable John Murray (R. B. Kuiper and many others) justifying our offering of the Gospel to all men, even though we do not believe it is actually for all men. Other noted theologians have repeatedly done the same. Some to greater or lesser success. Yet, there is no question a tension remains.
Fred Leuck is a dear friend of mine. A valued brother in Christ. A stalwart for the faith. A comrade in the Gospel. A faithful Pastor. And, he has written a response to my original paper which is included below, along with my responses to some of his. With the exception of some places where I deleted the Biblical text but left the citation, Fred’s portion remains in its entirety.
I cannot express my thanks enough for the love Fred displayed in writing such a detailed response to my original paper. My poorly constructed and somewhat disconnected musings do not deserve the level of attention he gave them. It is of immense value to the Body of Christ for brothers to dialogue over areas of theology, Biblical interpretation and doctrinal precision. To do so publicly can at times be uncomfortable. But it demonstrates our willingness to humbly question ourselves, to continue to labor for clarity and understanding, and to hold one another mutually accountable for our stewardship in God’s truth.
Every step of the way Fred’s interchange here is filled with an irenic tone and a sweet spirit. I pray my own words will be heard and taken the very same way, since a spirit of true love, genuine respect and gratitude are meant to under-gird each one.
In the spirit of semper reformanda, I submit some answers, clarifications and responses below as I hope will prove most beneficial to the readers, and without over-laboring the points or issues.
I am still learning. Wanting above all simply to understand and communicate what the Bible teaches. I want to do so irrespective of how difficult those doctrines may or may not be in the sight of any man, group, or even myself. I want God’s Word to be as unobstructed as possible, even where, especially where – I might not be able to understand it as fully as I would like. Or, where it challenges or contradicts either my present understanding, my systematic framework, or common notions or opinions.
Quotations from others are used only as representative of schools of thought, not as authoritative in and of themselves.
My own interspersions will be prefaced by: [RAF#] and also in the Arial Narrow font for ease of search, navigation and reference.
Thank you for your own prayerful considerations of the discussion. May Christ’s truth triumph in all.
ResponsiveReiding 