Guest blog by Andrew Lindsey
Congregational singing: “Redeemed, Redeemed.”
Introduction of Dr. Allen by Dr. Jerry Vines.
Quote of John 3:16.
Argument against Limited atonement quoting only Calvinists.
What two things do these men have in common?
(Long list of theologians including Calvin, Bullinger, Ursinus, Bunyan, Edwards, Hodge, Strong.)
A: They are all Calvinists, and they all rejected Limited atonement.
2 Corinthians 5:19, “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.”
5-point Calvinists define “world” as the “elect.”
Extent of the atonement, two possibilities:
1. Jesus died for all humanity:
a. Arminians- He died for all equally.
b. 4-point Calvinists- He died for all, but especially the elect.
2. Jesus died for the elect.
Jesus died efficiently for all, but sufficiently for the elect. In the high Calvinist position, Jesus’ death is sufficient only for the elect.
Several theologians were named who signed either the Canons of Dort or the Westminster Confession, yet rejected Limited atonement.
“The dirty little secret that you’re not often told” about Dort is that the language was left ambiguous to allow both high Calvinists and those who rejected “strict particularism” to all sign the document.
Calvinists were repeatedly enjoined to read primary sources rather than only popular authors like John Piper and John MacArthur.
The first person ever to hold to limited atonement was a 9th century monk named Gottschalk. Gottschalk was condemned by three French councils.
Luther rejected Limited atonement, as seen in his comments on 1 John 2:2 and numerous other comments.
Numerous quotes from John Calvin were offered (such as his comments on Romans 5:18 and John 3:16) to demonstrate that he did not hold to Limited atonement.
Ursinus, “Christ satisfied for all…” but not in respect to its application.
The controversy in the second and third generation was over the introduction of Limited atonement into Calvinism.
With the introduction of Limited atonement into Calvinism leads to hyper-Calvinism.
The early English reformers all held to unlimited atonement.
Quotes from at least two Westminster divines were given to argue that many at Westminster did not hold to Limited atonement. The argument centered on whether these divines interpreted “world” in John 3:16 to refer to the world of the elect.
Richard Baxter, well-known for rejecting Limited atonement, was quoted.
Jonathan Edwards quote to the effect that Christ in some sense died for the whole world, though there is a particularity to his death that effects only the elect.
The three categories of Arminianism, Amyraldianism, and Calvinism are historically not enough. Additional categories allow for definitions of Calvinism such as hypothetical universalism and four-point Calvinism. [Dr. Allen asserts that these categories are different than Amyraldianism, but I could not understand his explanation of the difference he asserted.]
3 sets of texts that affirm unlimited atonement:
1. “All” texts
2. “World” texts
3. “Many” texts
Other texts speak of Christ dying for His sheep or for His church, but these texts do not say that He died only for these groups.
Owen argued that God hates the non-elect (a quote from Owen was cited), but the Bible says that God loves the world and never says that God hates the world.
Any teaching that says one or all of these things:
1. God does not love everyone
2. God does not want to save everyone
3. Jesus did not die for everyone
is unbiblical and should be rejected.
Quote from [Reformed Baptist] Sam Waldron: The free offer of the gospel does not require us to tell people Christ died for you.
But the above is contradicted by passages such as 1 Corinthians 15:3, in which Paul related what he said to the Corinthians as he proclaimed the gospel to them, including, “Christ died for you,” and in Jesus’ statement of the cup at the Last Supper, “This is my blood,” was given while Judas was at the table.
There is no statement in Scripture that Jesus died only for the elect
Why this is important:
1. Limited atonement undermines God’s salvific will
(Dr. Allen asserted that Dr. James White is a hyper-Calvinist according to Phil Johnson’s primer on hyper-Calvinism, as Dr. White says that God does not have any desire to save the non-elect.)
2. Limited atonement undermines evangelistic zeal
(Mark Dever in is otherwise great book on personal evangelism leaves out two important motives for evangelism- that Christ died for all men and that God desires all men to be saved.)
3. Limited atonement means that we could not say to a sinner that Christ died for you.
4. Limited atonement means that the preacher must speak to his congregation as if they can be saved, when he knows that some cannot
5. Limited atonement means that we will not give evangelistic invitations. Dr. Allen asserted that a professor [left unnamed] from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary said at a recent conference that we should not give an evangelistic invitation.
Conclusion: “Should the Southern Baptist Convention move toward 5-point Calvinism, such a move would be away from, and not toward, the gospel.” This was met with a standing ovation.
Dr. Allen directed hearers to BaptistTheology.org where there is apparently a paper pointing out the logical and exegetical fallacies of Owen’s “double-payment argument.”
Three pages of handouts were given, defining terms used in the presentation such as Arminianism and Amyraldianism. Dr. Allen strove for accuracy in these definitions, footnoting each definition, using Calvinistic sources to define terms to do with Calvinism.
A peculiarity in his definitions is that Dr. Allen restricts the meaning of Limited atonement to the teaching that Christ’s death in no way benefits the non-elect. This is how he can claim so many of the Reformed teachers mentioned before did not hold to Limited atonement.
After the sermon, Dr. Vines advertised several resources, including his “Baptist Battles” series of DVDs, which includes, “Calvinism: A Baptist and His Election.”
Comments (31) »
1. Brian @ VoiceoftheSheep
November 7, 2008
12:54 PM
This whole conference is a travesty. God have mercy on the SBC and its view of God.
2. Garrett
November 7, 2008
12:57 PM
I couldn’t find the paper he referenced on BaptistTheology.org. Anyone know where it is?
gh
3. brandon
November 7, 2008
12:59 PM
If Jesus paid the penalty for ALL the sins of ALL men, why are people being punished for their sins in hell?
4. Garrett
November 7, 2008
1:03 PM
“This was met with a standing ovation.”
As many as were appointed to give a standing ovation, stood and clapped :-)
5. Seth McBee
November 7, 2008
1:15 PM
Tim.
Great post and hopefully this gets more pub…many are doing research into this study and it is eye opening.
For further reading I would highly recommend the following:
Looking at John 3:16
Calvin and Calvinism This is by far the best site online to see the Reformed understanding of the atonement and will of God.
6. Jeff Brown
November 7, 2008
1:16 PM
Garrett,
I coundn’t find the paper either… Anyone else found it?
Jeff
7. Jeff Brown
November 7, 2008
1:17 PM
I can’t spell either :-)
8. John
November 7, 2008
1:28 PM
Did anyone try to address the problem of Christ paying the penalty for the sins of people already in hell (e.g., Jezebel)?
9. John Wootten
November 7, 2008
1:30 PM
Andrew, I join everyone else in saying thank you for blogging the conference. It’s a shame they’re not providing the presentations online like Building Bridges.
10. Douglas K. Adu-Boahen
November 7, 2008
1:33 PM
This is not for real. The Southern Baptist Convention and those seminaries who sponsored this travesty should hang their heads in shame.
11. Justin Keller
November 7, 2008
2:30 PM
I mentioned this in a comment on the previous post, but I’ll repeat it here. At the end of Freedom of the Will, Edwards explicitly affirms Limited Atonement. Calvin also clearly affirms the doctrine in places such as his Commentary on Romans. I’ve heard these sorts of claims before, and what I have observed is that in their expositional/exegetical work, men such as Edwards and Calvin adopted the language of the passage they were working with. To get a more systematic view of their thought requires reading their more systematic works, or reading broadly enough of their writings to do some systematizing ourselves. It seems pretty clear that Dr. Allen should pursue both routes if he is to represent Reformed thinkers fairly.
Did Allen interact at all with the idea that some of the most effective evangelists of the modern era are five-point Calvinists (Keller or Driscoll for example), or that the father of the modern missions movement was a five-point Calvinist (William Carey)?
12. David Milton
November 7, 2008
2:57 PM
“but the Bible says that God loves the world and never says that God hates the world.”
IF TRUE, then ESAU has a legal case against God. Romans 9:10-13. But is God unjust? Romans 9:14-18.
Dr. Allen, if I can look it up, so can you.
13. Seth McBee
November 7, 2008
2:59 PM
Justin.
You are mistaken with Driscoll…he is a limited/unlimited in his atonement understanding.
14. Martin
November 7, 2008
3:00 PM
Justin,
I haven’t seen this myself so I’d be most grateful if you could provide evidence of your claims regarding Edwards and Calvin. Perhaps you could do it on your blog which would probably be a more appropriate venue for any subsequent interaction?
Thanks,
Martin
15. Seth McBee
November 7, 2008
3:16 PM
Justin.
I would highly recommend you going to Calvin and Calvinism.com to take a gander at the sources, because your comment is way over stated.
Many sources on that blog show the historic Reformed position in regards to the atonement.
16. Alan Kurschner
November 7, 2008
4:01 PM
James White has responded to Dr. Allen’s false accusation:
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2955
17. John Meche
November 7, 2008
4:24 PM
Everyone believes that the atonement is limited unless they are universalist. And I don’t understand why they are so hung up on not being able to tell people that Jesus died for them. If you reject the gospel clearly the atonement does not cover you. What I would say is “Jesus died for you such that if you repent of your sin and believe in his name, you will be saved.” I think that is right from a Calvinist perspective and from a biblical one. The atonement has conditions.
18. Justin Keller
November 7, 2008
4:59 PM
I’m supposed to be writing a sermon right now, so I need to make this my last comment on this post. I mentioned what I mentioned earlier (1) to be helpful and (2) to critique the presentation. It was not my intent to get drawn into a debate on four vs five point Calvinism.
Seth, certainly there have been folks within the broader Reformed community who have had concerns with the “L” in TULIP. I went to the site you mentioned, but it seems to me that much of what I read does not say what the blog author wants it to say. For example, when Hodge writes that Christ’s death was sufficient for all men but efficient for only the elect, he’s offering the traditional five-point understanding of particular redemption. The need to avoid overstating our case is a need shared by all of us.
I concede that I overreached with Driscoll, though as the meta in at the A-Team blog (http://ateam.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2006/8/7/2208844.html) in regard to Driscoll and Ware, it isn’t as clear cut as four points or five points. Driscoll and Ware both hold the view that Christ’s death is salvific only for the elect, but that there are other benefits purchased for the nonelect by Christ’s death. No problem for limited atonement there. The problem comes when Driscoll uses the label “atonement” to describe these non-salvific benefits.
Martin, at the end of Edwards’ Freedom of the Will is a section entitled “Consequences for several Calvinist doctrines, such as universal decisive providence” in which he defends limited atonement. I don’t think that section is in the edition published at CCEL — when I studied this work in grad school I was reading the Yale edition. In regard to Calvin, it’s there in the way he discusses the atonement in his commentary on Rom 3:24, 5:8, and most clearly on Rom 8:29-30. You could also go to the Institutes (II.xii.4, III.xiv.6, II.xvi.18, III.i.2, III.xxii.7 for example). Keep in mind that debates about the order of election were not at the forefront of Calvin’s thinking, so expecting the kind of language used today is anachronistic. But the question of those for whom the atonement is efficacious is, IMHO, fairly clear.
Sorry to take up so much space, Tim.
19. Phillip Johnson
November 7, 2008
5:08 PM
Let me go on record here: I know James White well and he is not a hyper-calvinist. The article Dr. Allen cited from me says nothing whatsoever about what God “desires.” What I have consistently said elsewhere is that optatiove expressions like desire are always problematic when it comes to describing God’s demeanor toward the reprobate. I try to avoid them most of the time, though I think there’s a germ of important truth in God’s own pleas and expressions of willingness to be reconciled to any and all sinners. But I recognize and affirm the equally valid point being made by those who reject the language of “desire,” and who choose never to use it. I would not call someone a “hyper-Calvinist” for holding and defending that opinion. Especially someone who is as active in evangelism as James White.
Moreover, in the section of my notes on h-cism that deals with God’s will toward the reprobate, I expressly acknowledged that there is a strain of classic high-calvinists who deny that God’s expressions of goodwill toward the reprobate may properly be called “love,” but who are not really hyper. I said, “They are a distinct minority, but they nonetheless have held this view. It’s a hyper-Calvinistic tendency, but not all who hold the view are hyper-Calvinists in any other respect.”
Let me add this: if the average Baptist preacher were one-tenth as committed to evangelism as James White, the Arminians in their midst might have some reason to carp about hyper-calvinism. As it is, those who say these kinds of things ought to sit with their hands over their mouths and learn some things from Mr. White.
20. YnottonY
November 7, 2008
5:34 PM
Phil,
James White doesn’t merely have quibbles over the term “desire” being applied to God. He flat out denies (even scornfully) that God in any sense wills or wants any of the non-elect to be saved (click).
Further, while it is true that your Primer on hyper-Calvinism says nothing about what God “desires,” it does make a point about God giving sincere proposals of mercy to all men. As you recall, it says:
“This is virtually the epitome of the hyper-Calvinist spirit: it is a denial that the gospel message includes any sincere proposal of divine mercy to sinners in general.”
On your blog, you also said that “denying it outright [that God wills/desires to save all] would seem to suggest that God’s commands and beseechings are not well meant.”
How could James White believe in a sincere offer or proposal of mercy when he denies that God in any sense wills the non-elect to saved? A necessary component of a sincere proposal of mercy is a willingness on God’s part to grant what is offered. To deny God’s willingness to save a non-elect person is the same as denying that God’s commands and beseechings toward that person are sincere. Whatever you call that, it is grossly unbiblical.
21. Thomas Twitchell
November 7, 2008
6:11 PM
Justin, you’re right about Allen though you may be wrong about Driscoll or others. I do know he overstated the case of D.A Carson. And, he consistently pulls quotes out of context. He does that with Calvin, he did it with Edwards, he sets White against Johnson by the same dishonest means, and I would not be surprised that he has quote shopped Google rather that having read the sources himself. His bravado and braggadocio does him no honor. His attempt at making men the authority is misplaced. That is, as he inferred, the error we five pointers all share. He believes that is why Calvinists believe in the five points. He believes we have been duped. He thinks we are victims of prestidigitators. He should take his own advice, however, and actually read the Bible without his Caner Clone blinders on. While it may be true that many “mostly Calvisnists” held the wrong position, (contradicting Scriptures such as John 17 which is so clear about the limited nature of Christ’s concecration for the elect’s sanctification only, i.e. his passion for his bride alone), as Allen so rarely rightly states, the proper exegesis of Scripture and not the authorities of the past, is the authority to which we appeal.
What Allen is trying to do, what all the speakers are setting up, is to make provision for the final purge and the take over of the SBC by the psuedo-conservative, Arminian/Semi-Pelagian sect. They must legitimate their rule. Their Hobbism will remain heresy, nontheless, but then who but they in the SBC will be any wiser as to the facts? For if Tom Ascol is correct, and he is, the lack of historic doctrinal instruction is the reason we are here today. The status quo does not want to admit their error. They think that by keeping things hidden, by not executing the diciplinary function of the church, everything will be just fine. Unfortunately, that mentality has bred widespread apathy and ignorance among SBC’ers in the pews. It is a loosing game for the old guard either way.
Caner was there and the fact that the invective hurler, Chancelor Ergun, was there, is not to be mistaken as a hope for reconcilliation and preservation of the unity of the Republic. This Conference was covened for the express purpose of politicizing the issues so that rebellion from the traditions can be blamed on the evangelism hating, opposition murdering, anti-Baptist Calvinists (stealth Presbyterians). Long live the First Galatian Errorpire, eh Caner?
One thing that Allen has admitted, and is to be praised for, he is no theologian.
Thankyou Phil… Any thing that anyone of us might say, at one time or another can be pulled out of its original context to make us say what ever the critic wants. We do not all remain static in our beliefs. Thank God that Augustine wrote his Confessions. Any of us who came from an Arminian background and have since been enlightened, should we die, could be labelled whatever the interpreter of our lives wanted. Perhaps we should all write confessions for our post mortem defense. Allen’s error, so common among those who hate Dortianism, is the fact that they will stoop to such mischaracterizations as most benefit their agenda. That is intellectual dishonesty, the modus operandi of the fundamentalists in the SBC. They have just never broken away from the error of obscurantism. In darkness they believe themselves safe. The problem is that with the internet, the flood lights are on, permanently.
22. tartanarmy
November 8, 2008
5:03 AM
“But I recognize and affirm the equally valid point being made by those who reject the language of “desire,” and who choose never to use it. I would not call someone a “hyper-Calvinist” for holding and defending that opinion.”
—————————————————————————————————————————-
Thank you Phil! If only I had you at my side during the many excruciating conversations with Ponter and Byrne regarding this precise point! Oh the pain and the shame of it all.
And for saying,
—————————————————————————————————————————-
“Moreover, in the section of my notes on h-cism that deals with God’s will toward the reprobate, I expressly acknowledged that there is a strain of classic high-calvinists who deny that God’s expressions of goodwill toward the reprobate may properly be called “love,” but who are not really hyper.”
—————————————————————————————————————————
Again, ditto Mr Johnson. Music to my ears but a screeching, painful noise for Tony and other Ponterites.
If you wait long enough, vindication comes, and I am thankful for it, considering some of the conversations/battles I have been in with these guys.
Some use your article Phil, to belt the living daylights out of us so called one eyed decretalists.
That is, Hyper, cyclops like me!
I think the leadership of the SBC should invite the Ponterites into membership, that they might hook up with the Caners and others and draw their line in the sand.
It would be much simpler!
Mark a.k.a Tartanarmy
23. Jon Szabo
November 8, 2008
2:00 PM
I would just make a case for what may be called a Limited Progressive Atonement, which affirms:
1. The Christ-atonement cannot be separated into two brands of effective vs. ineffective. The New Testament only speaks of one kind of atonement -the effective kind (see Romans 5:9; Hebrews 9:14, 10:11-20). To promote the idea of (putting it crudely) a dud-Christ atonement for the damned is downright repugnant and altogether foreign to New Testament teaching. According to Jesus own words His atonement is inseparably linked to new covenant regeneration (see Luke 22:20, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood”). Throughout Scripture covenants are never [kinda-sorta] shared by unintended parties. Either you are in the covenant or you are not. Either you have Christ’s blood absorbing God’s wrath for your sins or you do not.
2. The present-now-literal blanket understanding of “world”, “all” and “many” passages like John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2 is entirely unwarranted. For example, when Paul says “through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men” in Romans 5:18 he is not making a case for universalism; in verse 19, “all” turns to “many.” Paul is only looking at the broader view of God’s plan of salvation beyond Israel (even, to the Roman-gentiles!).
3. Without becoming a universalist, we can make the case for a future time on earth in which literally all people will be saved under the Christ atonement (see Isaiah 2:3, 11:9, 42:4; Romans 11:25). In 1 Timothy 2:6 Jesus Christ is the “ransom for all, THE TESTIMONY GIVEN AT THE PROPER TIME.” Here the extent of the atonement reaching “all” is qualified by personal testimonies bearing to that fact. It is very conceivable that, in view of the eschatological prophesies covering the entire globe in Scripture from Isaiah, Daniel and Ezekiel, that “all” will be realized in the fullest –yet into the future. With global evangelism, there is a progressive move towards realizing this “all.”
24. Matt Johnson
November 8, 2008
7:04 PM
Context, Context, Context…..It is either really bold or really foolish to say that Edwards didn’t believe and teach Limited Atonement.
Here is the quote he mentioned, from page 88 of Edwards’ “Works”, in particular, from his essay “The Freedom of the Will”:
“The things which have been said, do likewise answer the chief objections against the doctrine of God’s universal and absolute decree, and afford infallible proof of this doctrine; and of the doctrine of absolute, eternal, personal election in particular. The main objections against these doctrines are, that they infer a necessity of the volitions of moral agents, and of the future and moral state and acts of men; and so are not consistent with those eternal rewards and punishments, which are connected with conversion and impenitence; nor can be made to agree with the reasonableness and sincerity of the precepts, calls, counsels, warnings, and expostulations of the word of God; or with the various methods and means of grace, which God uses with sinners to bring them to repentance; and the whole of that moral government, which God exercises towards mankind: and that they infer an inconsistence between the secret and revealed Will of God; and make God the author of sin. But all these things have been obviated in the preceding discourse. And the certain truth of these doctrines, concerning God’s eternal purposes, will follow from what was just now observed concerning God’s universal providence; how it infallibly follows from what has been proved, that God orders all events, and the volitions of moral agents amongst others, by such a decisive disposal, that the events are infallibly connected with his disposal. For if God disposes all events, so that the infallible existence of the events is decided by his providence, then, doubtless, he thus orders and decides things knowingly, and on design. God does not do what he does, nor order what he orders, accidentally and unawares: either without or beside his intention. And if there be a foregoing design of doing and ordering as he does, this is the same with a purpose or decree. And as it has been shown, that nothing is new to God, in any respect, but all things are perfectly and equally in his view from eternity; hence it will follow, that his designs or purposes are not things formed anew, founded on any new views or appearances, but are all eternal purposes. And as it has been now shown, how the doctrine of determining efficacious grace certainly follows from things proved in the foregoing discourse; hence will necessarily follow the doctrine of particular, eternal, absolute election. For if men are made true saints, no otherwise than as God makes them so, and distinguishes them from others, by his efficacious power and influence, that decides and fixes the event; and God thus makes some saints, and not others, on design or purpose, and (as has been now observed) no designs of God are new; it follows, that God thus distinguished from others, all that ever become true saints, by his. eternal design or decree. I might also show, how God’s certain foreknowledge must suppose an absolute decree, and how such a decree can be proved to a demonstration from it: but that this discourse may not be lengthened out too much, that must be omitted for the present.
“From these things it will inevitably follow, that however Christ in some sense may be said to die for all, and to redeem all visible Christians, yea, the whole world, by his death; yet there must be something particular in the design of his death, with respect to such as he intended should actually be saved thereby. As appears by what has been now shown, God has the actual salvation or redemption of a certain number in his proper absolute design, and of a certain number only; and therefore such a design only can be prosecuted in any thing God does, in order to the salvation of men. God pursues a proper design of the salvation of the elect in giving Christ to die, and prosecutes such a design with respect to no other, most strictly speaking; for it is impossible, that God should prosecute any other design than only such as he has: he certainly does not, in the highest propriety and strictness of speech, pursue a design that he has not. And, indeed, such a particularity and limitation of redemption will as infallibly follow, from the doctrine of God’s foreknowledge, as from that of the decree. For it is as impossible, in strictness of speech, that God should prosecute a design, or aim at a thing, which he at the same time most perfectly knows will not be accomplished, as that he should use endeavours for that which is beside his decree…”
25. YnottonY
November 9, 2008
4:51 AM
Hi Matt,
When Dr. Allen made the claim that Edwards did not believe in “Limited Atonement,” he was using that term in the sense of strict particularism. That terminology was spelled out in the sheet of definitions that he gave out at the conference [see JohnMark’s blog for that handout].
Let me clarify a bit further. By “strict particularism,” Dr. Allen is not talking about those who do not think that common grace flows from the cross. John Murray thought that it did, and yet he was a strict particularist IN THE SENSE THAT only the sins of the elect were imputed to Christ when he died. That’s the crucial issue at stake, i.e. limited imputation.
So, while Edwards definitely has an element of particularity in his theology of the cross of Christ, it is not in the sense that he saw Christ as only paying the ransom price for the elect alone in his satisfaction, like Owenists think. This is why Edwards can say, “Christ in some sense may be said to die for all, and to redeem all visible Christians, yea, the whole world, by his death;…” Where are the Owenists who say that Christ redeemed all visible Christians and the whole world? They are careful NOT to say that very thing, for they think Christ strictly redeemed the elect alone in his satisfaction, and not all those in the visible church, and especially not the whole world.
While Edwards definitely believed in God’s efficacious decree of election and the designed nature of the application of his death to the believing elect, there was not a limited imputation view joined with that, as is found in Owen. Christ suffers sufficienctly for the sins of the whole world [redemption accomplished], but only the elect are saved [redemption applied] because Christ especially wills their salvation through that unlimited expiatory act.
Pointing out aspects of limitation or particularity in Edwards is not enough to refute Dr. Allen’s claim. He acknowledges that it is there, since Edwards is obviously a Calvinist. Rather, what he is doing is point out universal aspects in Edwards, such that Edwards himself uses redemption language for all visible Christians and the whole world. That’s different from saying that common grace come to all by means of Christ’s death, as even most strict particularists [like Murray] affirm.
For more quotes by Edwards pertaining to this subject, see HERE (click).
Grace to you,
Tony
26. tartanarmy
November 9, 2008
12:26 PM
Very tricky to put the reformed phrase about “sufficient for all but efficient for the elect”, together with Murray’s “redemption accomplished and applied”. Might slide under the radar of some.
Yes, Tony, the issue is “limited imputation”.
Folks, ya need to realize that Tony preaches the same message as David Ponter and some of the others posting in this thread.
They are espousing “universal expiation”. That is their doctrine.
Grasp it for what it is. When Jesus died upon the cross, His death expiated all the sins of everyone. That is why Tony argues so strongly for well meant offers and that is why Tony and others are hacking the life out of our forefathers for anything that sounds like “universal” language and or Christ dying for all etc etc.
These guys will not talk about “propitiation” and what that word entails. It is all about “universal expiation” for them.
But going back to the old saying about “sufficient for all, but efficient for the elect”, what exactly did that mean?
Well, Calvin spoke about the term when he said the following about 1 John 2:2,
——————————————————————————————————————————
“And not for ours only. He added this for the sake of amplifying, in order that the faithful might be assured that the expiation made by Christ, extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel.
Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ 1 suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world.”
——————————————————————————————————————————
Calvin dealt with the fanatics in his day, and we are still dealing with the dotage of the same fanatics today. (IE those espousing universal expiation) Nothing changes, but you would think a few hundred years down the track we would be a bit smarter, standing upon the shoulders of giants and all that, right?
Nope. Same ol same ol.
Mark
ps, I wrote this a while back. Might help. Wrote it in 2005
http://tartansplace.blogspot.com/2007/03/20070305-response.html
27. YnottonY
November 10, 2008
10:20 PM
Andrew Lindsey said in the main post above that:
That is not correct. Dr. Allen knows that there are some that hold to “Limited Atonement” [i.e. strict particularism] and yet admit that Christ’s death benefits the non-elect. They argue that common grace flows to all by means of Christ’s cross-work. Most, if not all, high Calvinsts [strict particularists] make that admission, and Dr. Allen knows it. If one carefully considers his confence lecture itself, they will see that he is citing men who view Christ’s death as satisfying FOR THE SINS OF all mankind, and not merely that it incidentally benefits all by way of common grace. Ursinus, Musculus, Bullinger, etc. were used to maintain and unlimited imputation of sin to Christ [which is admitted by Richard Muller], in contrast to a limited imputation of sin to Christ [i.e. “limited atonement” in Allen’s terminology/definitions].
I hope that helps,
Tony
28. tartanarmy
November 11, 2008
11:42 AM
Interesting to see Tony ignoring me.
He is learning. He is smart.
In the past he just ridiculed me to the extreme. He now knows I am a threat and a serious voice with much support against his views, and that is all I ever tried to communicate to him and his followers.
But, what does he exactly mean by (strict particularism)?
Can he quote from the forefathers he so often “uses” to his own ends”?
If so, give us a definition from say, Calvin, or some such person as to what strict particularism is in a nutshell……
Waiting…..
Mark
29. Darrin
November 12, 2008
3:19 PM
The fact that hundreds of SBC pastors gave a standing O at the statement that moving toward Calvinism is a move away from the gospel is a disgusting indication of the status of our denomination. Given the relatively sparse population of Reformed Baptist churches in America, perhaps many of us should bolster that and let the SBC go on its merry Wesleyan way, trusting in themselves for their salvation.
As to Allen’s 5 Points in “Why this is important”, points 1, 2 and 4 are erroneous, 3 is an “OK, so what’s your point”, and 5 is debatable - L shouldn’t necessarily prevent this, but given the issues with “decisional regeneration”, perhaps it’s OK too.
30. Darrin
November 13, 2008
2:05 PM
I hate to be cynical - sorry for the lack of grace in the last post. A pastor friend reminded me,
“The good thing about being a SBC church is that there is great freedom in each church to obey the Lord.” I’m thankful for that.
Sola gratia.
31. Paul Bollen
November 13, 2008
8:46 PM
No one ever brought up these verses of scripture. Is this a nother case of what the Bible says, but it really doesn’t mean?
God giving his son a people
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
John 3:27 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.
John 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
John 6:39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day
John 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
John 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
John 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand.
John 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand
John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever;
John 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
John 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
John 17:7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
John 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received [them], and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
John 17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them, which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are].
John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled
John 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
John 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
John 18:9 That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.
Acts 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand [to be] a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
Acts 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and [so is] also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him
Gal 1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
Galatians 3:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Galatians 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
1Corinthians 1:22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.
1Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Corinthians 15:38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
1Corinthians 15:57 But thanks [be] to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
2Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
2Corinthians 5:5 Now he, that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing [is] God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.
2Corinthians 5:18And all things [are] of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
2Timothy 1:9Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
1Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
1Timothy 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
2Timothy 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
Hebrews 2:13 “And again I put my trust in him. And again Behold I and the children which God has given me. Isa 8:13
1John 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
1John 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.