Since posting “Yes, Jesus Did Die for [the Sins of] Everyone!” on Monday, I have received many, thoughtful responses. I am thankful for all who have interacted, even those who voiced disagreement, and feel it appropriate to offer a few thoughts.
Preliminary Thoughts
1. It appears many people responding did not read the article and merely responded to one of the tweets promoting it, apart from the fuller context. This was occasionally noted by some in the replies.
“It is obvious most people responding or reacting did not actually read the article.”
Drexel King @drexelrking
In a three-tweet response, Gabriel Mira @gabemmira quoted verbatim for me Owen’s Trilemma argument with no comment as if to suggest that settles the issue, apparently unaware that in the article, I listed this argument and responded substantively, pointing out the serious flaws with Owen’s Trilemma argument.
I hope people will seek to read carefully and thoughtfully what I really said and what I meant by what I said. Here is a great example of reading and responding:
“I will be the first to say that this [is] a fair article. This give a fair treatment of both sides. I have read the Scriptures you have provided. I will read it again to make sure my analysis is correct. I will read the article again. Thank you Doctor.”
Charles Ratcliff @Charlesrat74
2. Very few people are responding in any substantive way to the points I raised in the article. My article is a direct response to Erik Raymond’s article, not an independent defense of unlimited atonement. It seems appropriate that those who take issue with what I have said should interact directly with statements in context in the article.
3. In light of the above, I hope people will show where they think I have erred in my rebuttal to Raymond or why they think I am in error theologically. Disagreement is not an argument. Citing common Calvinist arguments for limited atonement is not an argument against my critique of those very arguments. Where and why am I wrong?
4. Shouldn’t comments avoid ad hominem or otherwise disrespectful and/or snarky statements? I won’t respond to these as they are self-defeating.
“Are u reading the Holy Bible? God handpicked the Israelites. Jesus hand picked His disciples. Jesus hand picked Paul, against his will. He was on his way to persecute Christians.”
Edgar (PaPa) Horn @EddieHorn“Dr. Allen’s arguments Shows He hasn’t bothered to actually read his opponents arguments.”
Matt @ohrwurm_ATWhats wrong with you?
Shebi TULIP @ShabiVolley
Response
I will attempt to briefly respond to some of the more common comments I’ve seen on Twitter.
1.Confusion over atonement accomplished and atonement applied. Failure to recognize this distinction leads to the charge that universal atonement entails universalism. My article seeks to demonstrate why universal atonement does not entail universalism.
“Either the atonement is limited by man’s will or God’s will (John 1:13). Or, are you suggesting all will be saved?”
Nathan Creitz @nathancreitz
Nathan is here equivocating on the term “atonement” and using it to mean “salvation.” To put it in other words: the tweet confuses and conflates atonement accomplished with atonement applied. Also, he seems to be understanding the atonement in a commercial sense. I addressed both of these issues in the article.
2. In response to my claim that there is no text in Scripture that says Christ died only for the elect:
“There is no text in Scripture stating the doctrine of the Trinity. See how silly that sounds.”
Matt @ohrwurm_AT“John 10:15-16, 26-27 John 17:9, 20 just for starters. Also Dr Allen, are you a trinitarian? Do you hold scripture to the same standard when proving that doctrine?”
Kenny Simon @jksimon80
There are many texts in Scripture stating the doctrine of the Trinity. What is not used in Scripture is the word “Trinity.” I argue that the concept of limited atonement (a limited satisfaction for sins whereby only the sins of the elect are atoned for at the cross) is not taught anywhere in Scripture, explicitly or implicitly. And yes, I am a Trinitarian, because Scripture teaches it.
Some appear to be arguing that Scripture teaches limited atonement implicitly just as it teaches the Trinity implicitly; it just needs to be inferred. Others seem to be arguing limited atonement is there explicitly, as if to suggest, “How could you miss it, Dr. Allen?! It is clearly there.” It is certainly not there explicitly. If it is there only implicitly, then that is a tacit admission that it is a logical deduction based on what one thinks Scripture says, and not something explicitly stated in scripture.
3. In response to my tweet “There is no atonement text in scripture stating that God intends to save only the elect.”
“Wow! Sure there is. Romans 8:31-39.”
David @dgatchjr
The hue and cry over this statement in the article and in the tweet is a misreading of what I wrote, coupled with a misinterpretation of Rom 8:31-39.
Notice I did not say that atonement and election are not related, or the Bible doesn’t teach election. As I said in the article, there is no text period that teaches Jesus died only for the sins of the elect. I also claim that there is no atonement text in Scripture that limits God’s intention to save only the elect.
Romans 8 is not a text whose focus is atonement, but let’s grant for the sake of argument that it is since Romans 8:32 states: “He who did not spare his own Son but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?” Paul is addressing believers and their current status as having been justified because they have believed in Christ.
To suggest this text teaches limited atonement is faulty logic.
All those “died for” receive all things.
Some do not receive all things;
Therefore, they are not died for.
Here is the fallacy: the first “us” in Rom 8:32 is being converted into “all for whom Christ died,” when contextually the “us” refers to believers, not all for whom Christ died.
Those who cite Romans 8 as supporting limited atonement are equivocating on the meaning of the word “us” in v. 32 and “elect” in v. 33. There is no place in Scripture where “elect” refers to the abstract class of all the elect qua elect (unborn elect, unbelieving elect, believing elect, glorified elect). Every time the word “elect” occurs in Scripture, it refers only to believers. There are no exceptions. (As an aside, the same is true of the use of “his people” in Scripture. Never is the term used for the abstract class of the elect, as most Calvinists use it. “His people” is usually a reference to the nation of Israel, as in Matt 1:21.)
Reformed systematic theology speaks of “the elect” as the abstract class of all the elect; Scripture never does. Therefore, it is begging the question when one takes the two uses of “us” in Rom 8:32 and “elect” in Rom 8:33 as meaning the abstract class of all the elect qua elect. It is only believers that Paul is speaking to and about. Paul is giving special assurance to those in a believing state.
Think of it this way—Has God resolved to save anyone other than believers? No. Are there atonement texts that say God intends only to save believers? Yes! John 3:16 is a prime example. If we use the word “elect” as equivalent to “believers” as Scripture does, then there are atonement texts that say God intends only to save the elect, since it turns out in the end that the elect constitute all believers.
In Scripture, universal terms are always used when atonement texts speak of the atonement and its extent. Limited terms are always used when a text speaks of election, because these texts always refer to existing believers only.
4. In response to my tweet “Atonement accomplished does not mean atonement applied.”
“Hebrews 9:12”
Jonathan Murdock @sfjm“True that we don’t know who the elect are. If God had made provisions for the salvation of all people, all would be saved because salvation “doesn’t depend on man’s desire or effort but on God’s mercy” (Romans 9:16).”
John Carpenter @JohnCarpenter64
Here is the fifth of five tweets from Covenant Reformed Baptist Church @CovenantReform2:
“By making salvation dependent on a condition fulfilled by the sinner, Allen has made salvation based on works, not grace. So God has not designed salvation to be acquired by a choice of the sinner but has designed faith to be a mark of whom He has saved.”
Some Calvinists are so exercised about making sure salvation is “all of God” that they get out of balance and forget their own confessional statements. Even a Calvinist should not object to faith as conditional to salvation, because as orthodox Calvinism affirms, it is still our act, even if God gives faith as a gift.
When salvation is mentioned in Scripture, it is always conditional and human response is involved in it. God has never determined to save people apart from conditions. Faith is always involved. By the way, that’s not Arminianism…that’s just the Bible. Human responsibility is all over the place in Scripture when speaking about salvation. This in no way entails meritorious works.
According to God’s effectual intent to save only the elect, all Calvinists would indeed affirm this. However, when some Calvinists argue there is something in the atonement itself that secures its own application, most moderate Calvinists and all non-Calvinists say “no.” The only thing exclusive is the will of Christ, which is in the application of the atonement when one believes, not in the cross work itself.
Final Thoughts
You might ask: “Why all the fuss?” Here is why: the extent of the atonement is very near the heart of the gospel. It is a crucial theological issue and what one believes about it impacts many other areas theologically and practically.
To those seeking a formal debate on this issue, my response is there is no need to do so. I have published more than 1,200 pages on this subject (here’s my latest, The Atonement), including arguments by Calvinists since the Reformation against limited atonement. I have often said that most of the best arguments against limited atonement are made by Calvinists themselves who reject it, and their number is legion in the past and today. John Owen’s Double Payment argument and Triple Choice argument have been refuted and debunked a hundred times over by Calvinists. I have cited the sources and explained the arguments. I would love to see Calvinists who affirm limited atonement engage what I and others have written on this subject.
Very nice view. I think your previous arguments we’re very strong. All I experienced while talking with extreme Calvinists about these issues is that they always put words in your mouth and argue against it. Thank you Dr.
Dear Dr. Allen,
Are you not arguing against a particular understanding of ‘limited’ atonement in the Reformed Tradition not the entire concept of ‘limited’ within the reformed tradition? You said it yourself, Calvinists (5 pointers) have different theological stance on how the atonement is ‘limited’.
While it seems to me that you are willing to dichotomize ‘accomplished’ and ‘application’, the reformed thought do not share this assumption. The Scripture seems to suggest that both ‘accomplished’ and ‘application’ flowed from a single purpose or intention in the mind of the triune God. Thus, they are distinguishable but can not flow from two differing purposes. At least, this is how the reformed christian sees it.
Thus, when thinking about the atonement, the reformed has this overarching thought of God’s intention to save a people to himself through Christ sacrifice in eternity past. Plus, the reformed thinks of this purpose as effectual for the people whom he intended to save. Thus, for the reformed, what Christ accomplished and for whom it is applied flow from one purpose. For the reformed, it is quiet schizophrenic for the object of Christ’s sacrifice and the Spirit’s regenerative power to be different from the Father’s intention to save the people he chose from eternity past.
I think this is the lens on which Reformed Christians are reading atonement textS. I have not read a good rebuttal why this is not a good framework. But, happy to learn.
Thanks,
Joey Henry
Joey,
Thanks for your comment. You will find a response to the points you raised in my newest book “The Atonement: A Biblical, Theological and Historical Study of the Cross of Christ.” Once you have time to read it, let’s talk again!
Blessings!
David
Dear Joey,
You are equating Reformed and Calvinist. They are not the same thing. Not all Reformed people accept the 5 points.
Thank you Dr. Allen. I have not read your book as it is not yet available in Australia in Amazon (Kindle format).
However, you wrote a piece on Trinitarian Harmony in the atonement in your 2018 ETS paper: The Role of the Holy Spirit In The Atonement and Its Application. I believe this still captures the same argument in your book.
In this essay, you have quoted several Reformed Theologians regarding Trinitarian Harmony in the atonement. And, it seemed that you approve of what they have said. You wrote, “In perfect Trinitarian Harmony, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit work together to atone for human sin and bring about salvation.”
However, the Reformed conception of Trinitarian Harmony is rooted upon two premises: the “unconditional election” of God and the “total depravity” of man. Both premises you reject in footnote 48. Given you deny both premises, I wonder what is your theological position with regard to “election” and the nature of man’s “fallenness”? How do you positively present Trinitarian Harmony with such a worldview?
W.G.T Shedd, who you quoted approvingly and claimed to adhere to a “unlimited” atonement in your book Extent of the Atonement, explained that the issue depends on what is meant by “extent”. If it refers to “value or sufficiency” then “all parties who hold the atonement in any evangelical meaning would concede that the “extent“ of the atonement is unlimited.” However, he also added that “extent” could mean “the act of extending”. In this case, he explains, “The inquiry now is not: What is the value of the atonement? but: To whom does God purpose to apply its benefits?”
Shedd further explains, “Accordingly, in answering the question as to the “extent” of the atonement, it must first be settled whether “extent” means its intended application or its intrinsic value… If the word means value, then the atonement is unlimited; if it means applying, then the atonement is limited.”
Even John Owen (who you claim to adhere to “limited” atonement) agrees with this. He wrote, “It was the purpose and intention of God that his Son should offer a sacrifice of infinite worth, value, and dignity, sufficient in itself for the redeeming of all and every man, if it had pleased the Lord to employ it for that purpose; yea, and of other worlds, also, if the Lord should freely make them and would redeem them. Sufficient we say, then, was the sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of the whole world and for the expiation of all the sins of all and every man in the world.”
I think there is no fundamental difference between Owen and Shedd in this matter. Critics of “limited atonement” need to acknowledge that when Reformed Christians speaks of “limited atonement” — it is not the “value” that is being referred to but the object of its efficacy in the decree of God in light of man’s total depravity.
With regard to the issue of difference between “Redemption Accomplished” and “Redemption Applied”, Shedd explained:
Although Christ’s atonement, in the discussion of its value and sufficiency, can be separated from the intention to apply it, yet in the divine mind and decree the two are inseparable. The atonement and its application are parts of one covenant of redemption between the Father and the Son. The sacrifice of Christ is offered with the intention that it shall actually be successful in saving human souls from death. It is not rational to suppose that God the Father merely determined God the Son should die for the sin of the world, leaving it wholly or in part to the sinful world to determine all the result of this stupendous transaction, leaving it wholly or in part to the sinful world to decide how many or how few this death should actually save. Neither is it rational to suppose that the Son of God would lay down his life upon such a peradventure; for it might be that not a single human soul would trust in his sacrifice, and in this case he would have died in vain. On the contrary, it is most rational to suppose that in the covenant between the Father and Son, the making of an atonement was inseparably connected with the purpose to apply it: the purpose, namely, to accompany the atoning work of the Son with the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. The divine Father in giving the divine Son as a sacrifice for sin simultaneously determined that this sacrifice should be appropriated through faith by a definite number of the human family, so that it might be said that Christ died for this number with the distinct intention that they should be personally saved by this death.
I think this statement from Shedd clearly illustrates what Reformed Theologians have in common. Reformed Theologians can discuss and differ about the nature of the “limitation” of the atonement but all their formulations are grounded in the decree of God which includes his “unconditional election” in light of man’s “total depravity”. Given this, the object of the purpose of the atonement (which is not only to provide a basis of salvation but to actually save) is limited to the elect as per Shedd. And in this context, Reformed Theologians grounded their understanding of Trinitarian Harmony in the atonement.
You wrote in your ETS paper that the “cross itself, unapplied saves no one.” But this is a statement that implies Trinitarian Disharmony — as if, God’s purpose to save can stop at the cross and that the object of the atonement of Christ at the cross is different from the object of the Spirit’s regeneration. This is where Shedd is helpful. He explained that in the divine mind, “The sacrifice of Christ is offered with the intention that it shall actually be successful in saving human souls from death… The making of an atonement was inseparably connected with the purpose to apply it: the purpose, namely, to accompany the atoning work of the Son with the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.” In other words, there is no such thing as the “cross itself” when talking about soteriology from a Trinitarian perspective. Finally, this is where Romans 8:31-34 provides a strong exegetical basis that the non-sparing by the Father of the Son “for us” provides the basis for the giving of “all things” — the immediate context of which is God’s act to predestinate, call, justify and glorify. The atonement (i.e. God’s sparing not his Son) is “for us” or the “elect”. Since God does not predestine, call, justify and glorify; then, there must be a sense in which the atonement is not “for” everybody. In this sense, the Reformed Christian claims that the atonement is “limited”.
Joey,
Your points made in your comment will be answered in the next few days in my 3-part response to James White’s critique of my statements on Romans 8:32-34.
Very tedious reading all the long posts that all boil down to “I do” or “I don’t”. I would like to see Calvinists challenged more aggressively regarding the practical outworking of holding to Exhaustive Meticulous Providence. This doctrine is a joke. I mean this sincerely! Calvinists cannot bring themselves to say that”everything that happens, E V E R Y T H I N G, has been decreed by God and rendered absolutely certain for His glory and pleasure” Subjecting any of their writings about christian living and human events to this framework makes the whole exercise an adventure into the deepest realms of cognitive dissonance. This needs to be pointed out to their well known spokespersons every time they go there. Which is a lot!