Part 1 of a 3-part series.
In September I published “Yes, Jesus Did Die for [the Sins of] Everyone!” in response to a Gospel Coalition article championing limited atonement. As a follow–up, I posted “Responding to My Responders” focusing on several comments and questions made on social media. This garnered the attention of James White, who tweeted about it then mentioned it on his radio show, The Dividing Line (September 17, 2019). He was especially interested in my comments about Romans 8:31–34 with respect to limited atonement and the elect.
On October 29, 2019, White devoted about an hour of discussion on “The Dividing Line” to the section on Romans 8:31–34 in my latest book, The Atonement: A Biblical, Theological, and Historical Study of the Cross of Christ (B&H Academic, 2019).
I appreciate James White’s engagement at this point, because, quite frankly, few other Calvinists who affirm limited atonement have shown any willingness to engage my work on this subject. My book, The Extent of the Atonement: A Historical and Critical Review appeared three years ago. I had hoped that it would engender discussion on this important topic and garner some scholarly reviews and interaction. Instead, for the most part, it appears the book is being ignored by those within the Reformed community who affirm limited atonement.[1]
The Atonement: A Biblical, Theological, and Historical Study of the Cross of Christ contains more exegetical data related to atonement texts, but is intended to be a survey and not an exhaustive attempt to provide all the exegesis on atonement issues.
White asserts on his two aforementioned “Dividing Line” broadcasts that I offer no exegesis from the text of Scripture supporting my claims regarding Romans 8:32–34.[2] This statement carries a certain irony since it is common among limitarians to sidestep the exegetical evidence that clearly supports unlimited atonement in many New Testament texts and appeal to broader theological/logical issues, which, we are told, should be considered as paramount in deciding the issue. On this approach, the clear texts affirming unlimited atonement simply do not teach unlimited atonement and must be filtered through deductive logical/theological arguments, such as Double Payment, Triple-Choice, Trinitarian Disharmony, Universalism Entailed, etc., none of which occur in Scripture.
White also claims his exegesis of the text demonstrates where I have erred. His assertion deserves a response, and he shall have it. I urge readers to listen to White’s two “Dividing Line” broadcasts to get a sense of his exegesis of the text in question, then compare my exegesis below. I am writing with one eye toward how this text impinges on the extent of the atonement and with one eye on White’s critique of what I have written about this text. A fully detailed exegesis of every nook and cranny of these verses is not necessary; we will confine ourselves to addressing the pertinent issues and information.
My two-fold thesis is simple: 1) It is common among the Reformed to speak theologically of “the elect” as an abstract class. However, the New Testament always speaks of the elect as either the body of believers as redeemed and in a justified state, or in reference to an individual believer, as in Romans 16:13; never in the abstract of the elect as all the predestined as such, the elect in an unbelieving state, and/or as yet unborn. 2) A careful reading and exegesis of Romans 8:31–34 indicates the text does not assert nor does it support limited atonement. White disputes both of these points.
Owing to the rebuttal nature of this post and the breadth of content herein a few opening remarks are in order.
First, my argument is not with White’s understanding of predestination and election, though I think he is in error here as well. He assumes his Reformed interpretation of Romans 8:28–30 is valid and that other hermeneutical/exegetical/theological options are invalid. This is of course begging the question on those issues specifically, but the refutation of White’s interpretation of Romans 8:31–34 does not depend on whether one agrees or disagrees with the Reformed interpretation of predestination and election. I affirm the biblical notions of predestination and election as White does; I merely interpret them differently, as do virtually all of those in Christendom who are not Calvinists.
Second, there is no need to refute the Calvinist interpretation of predestination and election in Romans 8:29–30. Why? All Calvinists who affirm unlimited atonement agree with the Calvinist interpretation of the golden chain of Romans 8:29–30. That’s just Calvinism. Thus, at least from the perspective of moderate Calvinists, acceptance of the traditional Reformed interpretation of Romans 8:29–30 neither necessarily leads one to conclude limited atonement nor that Romans 8:31–34 affirms limited atonement. This explains why the many Calvinists who do not affirm limited atonement such as John Calvin, John Davenant, Richard Baxter, Thomas Chalmers, Charles Hodge, W. G. T. Shedd, and Robert Dabney, to name only a few, do not exegete Romans 8:31–34 in the same way White does. It is also interesting to discover that many modern-day Calvinists, even some who affirm limited atonement, do not exegete Romans 8:32–34 and use it to support limited atonement as does White. Tom Schreiner and Doug Moo come to mind. More on this later.
For the sake of argument, one can grant the Reformed interpretation of Romans 8:29–30 since it still does not support White’s interpretation of Romans 8:31–34 as will become evident. I will attempt to demonstrate his misunderstanding and thus misuse of the immediately preceding context of Romans 8:28–30 in his interpretation of Romans 8:31–34.
Exegesis of Romans 8:28–34 [3]
Romans 8 specifically highlights the divine initiative, accomplishment, and consummation of salvation for all believers. This point is recognized by Arminians and Calvinists alike.[4] Yet, Moo correctly cautions: “This does not entail any minimizing of the importance of the human response of faith that has received so much attention in chaps. 1–4.”[5]
From the perspective of Romans as a whole, Paul continues in Romans 8 to expound upon the implications of justification by faith for the believer. Romans 8:1–30 contain five semantic paragraphs in the Greek New Testament, each functioning as justification for the final claim/conclusion of Paul in vv. 31–39: no one can prevail against the believer, and no one or nothing can separate the believer from the love of God. From the perspective of the overall semantic structure of Rom 8, vv. 31–39 constitute the most important information the author is conveying.[6]
All of Rom 8 is about the believer in Christ.[7] This is evidenced by the inclusio structure of vv. 1 and 39. Romans 8:1—“Therefore now there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” Romans 8:39—“For I am convinced that neither death nor life…nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Notice the semantic parallels between these two verses. “No condemnation” parallels “nothing can separate us from the Love of God,” and the phrase “in Christ Jesus,” meaning those vitally in Christ through faith, concludes each verse. The focus of the entire chapter is on those who are “in Christ Jesus.” This is a crucial contextual point. Paul is addressing the topic of the life of the believer, as all the major exegetical commentaries on Romans note.
In the Greek text of Rom 8, the fifth paragraph, 8:28–30 semantically provides the fifth justification for the claim/conclusion in 8:31–39. Romans 8:31–39 is divided into two paragraphs: 8:31–34; 8:35–39. Each paragraph functions to make a claim that is based on Rom 8:1–30. Paul continues to develop the implications of what has preceded in the way he introduces v. 31: “What then shall we say to these things?” This is more than a rhetorical question. “These things” (tauta) can be taken either to refer to 5:1–8:30 or 1:16–8:30.[8]
In Part 2, I’ll continue exegeting Romans 8:28–30, then 8:31–34. In Part 3, I’ll provide theological analysis and consider the implications before my conclusion and an addendum.
[1]This is surprising and raises the obvious question: why? Some of my Reformed friends, both high and moderate Calvinists (moderate Calvinists affirm unlimited atonement and reject limited atonement), have suggested that the historical ground covered in the book is intimidating and some may not wish to engage at this level. The book, though far from being exhaustive, is something of a comprehensive introduction to the issue from a historical and theological perspective. Though exegesis is not the focus, there is a fair amount of exegesis involved in my presentation of the views of Calvinists who argued in favor of limited atonement and those who argued against limited atonement. It is incorrect to suggest the book contains no exegesis.
Additionally, The Extent of the Atonement contains a 100-page critique of every chapter in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her (2013). To my knowledge, this is the most extensive critique of that work which is touted as the best modern scholarly defense of limited atonement. To date, there has been no substantive interaction with or response to my critique by any of the authors in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her, or any other Calvinist who espouses limited atonement.
With respect to book reviews of The Extent of the Atonement, Jeffrey Johnson did offer a brief, overall critique of my Extent in an article published at the Founders Ministries website https://founders.org/reviews/the-extent-of-the-atonement/. See my August 21, 2017 rejoinder here: https://drdavidlallen.com/calvinism/response-to-jeffrey-johnsons-book-review-of-my-book-the-extent-of-the-atonement/. Partially as a result of my critique of Johnson’s 2017 book He Died for Me, he has published a 2018 revised and expanded work by the same title. His revised volume is less problematic than his first installment, though it is not without its problems as well.
[2]Here are some of his comments taken from both “Dividing Line” broadcasts: “Your tradition is against the exegesis of this text.” “This text absolutely says what David Allen says is nowhere in the Bible. It’s a tradition and not exegesis.” In reference to the article I wrote, White said: “We took it apart, demonstrated it was not exegetically based.” “What Dr. Allen is doing is taking an overarching context and reads it into any text to avoid what that text might actually be saying. I’m still looking for the exegesis.” “There is another atonement book. You at least get some of the biblical argumentation. Romans 8:32–34 gets at maximum of five relatively small paragraphs. There is no exegesis. 1100 plus pages [in my two books The Extent of the Atonement (2016) and The Atonement: A Biblical, Theological, and Historical Study of the Cross of Christ (2019)] – no meaningful exegesis of Romans 8 is provided.” “There is no concern for context. The only concern here is we have to make sure that Southern Baptists don’t believe in particular redemption. That’s the ultimate drive of these pages. Not what is in Scripture.” “This is a study in how to avoid the plain meaning of a text.” “The fallacy here is the lack of exegesis being offered by Dr. Allen.”
[3]I will use Greek transliteration without accent marks throughout for easier reference for those who do not read New Testament Greek.
[4]See, for example, D. J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 533; T. R. Schreiner, Romans, 2nded., BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2018), 449–ff.; Picirilli, as an Arminian, agrees: “God must always take the initiative in man’s salvation.” (R. E. Picirilli, Romans, CSS [Nashville: Randall House, 1975], 167); as does J. Cottrell, Romans (Joplin, MO: College Press, 2005), 1:502.
[5]Moo, Romans, 533.
[6]Ellis W. Deibler, A Semantic Structural Analysis of Romans (Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1998), 174–204.
[7]Note how many times Schreiner, Moo, and Longenecker employ the word “believers” in their commentaries on Rom 8, and especially on Rom 8:31–39.
[8]As Schreiner says: “Paul reflects back on 5:1–8:30 and considers the greatness of what God has accomplished on behalf of believers,” Schreiner, Romans, 448. Schreiner takes the tauta to refer to all that Paul has said in Romans 1:16–8:30 (Ibid., 449 –50).
The lack of response most likely has to do with the nature of Limited Atonement. The theology derives from a philosophical framework of Determinism. LA’s strength and appeal grow when one commits to resolve the tension of God’s Omnipotence in a very extreme definition of Sovereignty and His Omniscience in the outworking of all things. Thus God knowing is causal. God providing is final. So in such a philosophy, God would only apply the atonement to those He causally chose to “know” in a salvific sense before time began.
The determinist has a philosophy in search of Scripture to bend to it’s demands. But, when you give strong exegetical and contextual reasons for Christ’s legitimate offer, they cannot utilize proof texts. The silence speaks more of the emptiness of their system when the Bible becomes the starting point.
Thank You Dr Allen.
When enough parishioners and seminarians bring these objections to their pastors and professors they will have to respond. And I’ll bet they have heard plenty thus far.
Think of all the Calvinists who’ve told of how vociferously they kicked against the doctrines of irresistible grace when they first were introduced. If they had been better armed by sound scholarly exegesis, like yours, they would have been able to better gainsay the pillars of (eisegetical) inference that make up the Calvinistic system.
Please keep up the good work. We need you.
Wasn’t the issue solved at the Synod of Dort, when the Arminian position was destroyed by the great divines? The universal atonement position was called “novel” at best, heresy at worst. As Spurgeon said, Calvinism is simply a short hand for the Gospel. Once you move to Universal Atonement, you have to believe that man can “decide” for Jesus by his/her own volition. Clearly, men and women are totally incapable of this (1 Cor. 2:14). Indeed, Mr Allen is teaching his tradition, not Scripture.
Actually he’s teaching what was the universal view of the pre-Augustinian Church, so far as we know. . . . It is an extraordinarily cruel “God” you worship, brother.
In the Old Testament the word election has a simple, straightforward meaning and application: the descendants of Abraham known as Israel are God’s elect. But by the time of the post resurrection New Testament, election is a word that requires a great deal of qualification. It makes no sense to try and adapt the original Old Testament unqualified meaning of election and apply it to New Testament Gentiles, but yet that’s essentially what Calvinists attempt to do.
Expanding my comment above:
The New Testament qualification for election is that the true seed or descendant of Abraham is the one who shares Abraham’s faith. Election is unveiled by revelation in the fullness of time in human history, ultimately being qualified by the condition of a human response of faith which is aided by God. Now if one objects to the view that faith is a human response, and instead holds that faith can only be thoroughly compelled in a monergistic sense by God, then God would simply be adding to His own qualifications for unqualified election, or in the Calvinist’s parlance, God would be adding conditions to His unconditional election. And that is something that makes no sense to me either semantically, logically, or theologically.
I have been looking at this passage for quite some time myself. I have several issues with the way Paul would have been putting this together himself. It is so important to remember that there was no New Testament when Jesus, Peter, and Paul were preaching. Paul said to examine the Scriptures to see if what he was saying was true. This was to Jews and he was referring to their Scripture. At the end of all this Paul is going to warn the Gentiles that they would become arrogant if they remained ignorant of what it means to be grafted into and among the natural branches. So having said that I believe if we just imagine Paul preaching from his Hebrew Bible we find many things that need to be answered from not the reformation but the Hebrew prophets. The first obvious thing to me is not so much “going deep” into the Greek but just looking at the word “Amen” after Romans 9:5. Everybody knows that ending the teaching at the chapter break is ridiculous as they are man-made. Why not end the teaching of Paul concerning Ps. 44:22 at Romans 9:5? This flips the entire narrative when just stopping at Romans 8:39. Paul appears to be concluding his teaching of Ps. 44:1-26 up to and including the word AMEN in 9:5. Bringing the context forward would demand an answer to the question, “OK Paul if you are so right about what is taught in Ps. 44:1-26 then why are we still rejected by “our” God. (Note: Paul is totally aware of the teaching in Deut. 32 and knows we are only at v. 21 and is why he quotes it at 10:19 and 11:11 along with v. 41 at 12:41.) Paul knows that in Deut. 32 God will ultimately deliver Israel (Jer. 30:7). So, in my estimation, it is fatal to cut off Paul’s teaching on Ps. 44 at the end of chapter 8. The question that is begging to be answered from Ps. 44 is “Has the word of God failed?” The word of God would be that which was discussed in Ps. 44 about the elect nation of Israel. To cut to the chase Paul will answer this by ALSO including the Gentiles into the inheritance of Israel, a secret that was not revealed in the past but now is Paul’s ministry to teach this Gospel and he does in Romans 10 and 11. (Which is the same teaching in Eph. 2:12 thru 3:13 actually) The CONCLUDING verse from the Hebrew prophets is also important in answering this question. “Has the word of God failed?. Paul brings this home by quoting Isaiah 59:20 to his readers. Isaiah 59:20 IS the answer, the conclusion, to Paul’s teaching starting back at Romans 8. He has already proven that the election was an irrevocable calling given to Israel’s patriarchs and that was not of works. If a Gentile reads Isaiah 59:16-60:21 they will find the answer to this puzzling question Paul askes at Romans 9:6. Another thing to point out is that why is those “Foreknown” at Romans 8:29 so drastically different from those he says is “foreknown” at 11:2 of which Amos 3:2 answers. The best way to read this book from Paul is not through the eyes of a reformer but through the context of the Bible that Paul was preaching from… specifically Ps. 44 and Isaiah chapters 59 and 60. “Lest you be wise in your own site, I want you to understand this mystery (Ro. 11:25). So, in conclusion, the Hebrew Prophets should not be silenced in this discussion as Matthew 24:15, 2 Peter 3:2 and Acts 17:11 all teach very clearly by Jesus, Peter, and Paul respectively.
I wanted to do a follow-up on my last post making at least two key points. First, Paul was having great difficulties establishing his authority among the Jewish leaders. They were undercutting his ministry at every step. One could imagine that these Jewish leaders were well aware of the conflict that Moses and Arron had with Korah the son of Izhar and his group that REBELLED against God’s messenger. So, Paul reaching back to Ps. 44 would also take the argument back to those that were refuting his authority and put them on the defense using a story they would have known extremely well. They were followers of “Moses” and would have been using their authority against the common people of Isreal. Paul probably knew a lot about what Scripture to use to undercut his opponents. Second, A point that is missed by many is that Romans 11 is a metaphor Paul uses to teach what is in Romans 8 thru 9. The real technical part of this metaphor is best explained beginning at Ephesians 2:12. This passage in Ephesians is ONLY speaking to Gentiles, not Jews. Gentiles were “separated” from Christ, not Israel. Gentiles were “strangers” to the covenants (plural) of promise, not Israel. Gentiles were “alienated” from the commonwealth of Israel, not Israel. This is so important to realize. You can not replace a group of people you are “no longer” separated from (Covenant error). You can not continue to be separated from a people you are “no longer” alienated from (Dispensational error). We Gentiles are being grafted in AMONG the natural branches. God did not plant a new tree nor did He plant a wild olive tree beside the natural tree!. Jesus died on the cross REMOVING the wall of hostility between Jew and Gentile. We know Peter would not even enter the house of a Gentile under the law. The law was exclusively for the covenant community of Israel, not the Gentiles. Back to the Deut. 32 world view. Jesus’ death removed the wall of hostility which was the “law of commandments” as expressed in the ordinances. Both Jew and Gentile are now able to be reconciled, IN CHRIST. But this means that GENTILES are “no longer” alienated from the commonwealth of Israel. Gentiles are “no longer” strangers to the covenants of promise. They are fellow heir with the saints, they are being joined together, members of the same body WITH the Israelites. They are now one body. This is part of the GOSPEL (Eph. 3:7). So, addressing Jew “and” Gentiles is now part of the message. This is why Paul quotes Hosea 1:11 and Hosea 2:23 at Romans 9:25-26. This is why Paul quotes Isaiah 65:1 and 65:2 at Romans 10:20-21. Romans 9:1-5 is 100% Isreal leading to Romans 10:11-13 which is 100% everyone. This is because of the cross quotes in Romans 10:16 which is quoting Isaiah 53! So, in conclusion, Paul using Ps. 44 took them back to Numbers chapter 16 undercutting the Jewish leaders’ authority and also taking believers forward to the “Redeemer will come “from” Zion” in Romans 11:26-27 modifying Isaiah 59:22 where it says, “Redeemer will come “to” Zion. The entire passage of Romans 8 thru 11 must not be a total disconnect from the Hebrew Bible. IT is a huge mistake to due so. Nobody disconnects the Hebrew Bible who heeds the warning in Romans 11:25. “Lest you be wise in your own site, I want you to understand this mystery brothers.” I believe the foreknown in Romans 8:28 to be connected to Amos 3:2 and Romans 11:2, “God has not rejected his people whom He foreknew” which is tied directly to Romans 11:15 and Pslam 44:23 and the question Paul is asking at Romans 9:5″ Has the word of God failed! Merry Christmas to all!
“…many modern-day Calvinists, even some who affirm limited atonement, do not exegete Romans 8:32–34 and use it to support limited atonement as does White. Tom Schreiner and Doug Moo come to mind. More on this later.”- David Allen
I think this illustrates the point made in The Extent of the Atonement about limited atonement being a theological idea in hunt for a text, and why some seem to find limited atonement in a passage like this where most exegetes don’t. That itself says something. It is little wonder why Dr. Allen saw no need to spend more than five paragraphs in academic writing, per one of the complaints, addressing a passage that has nothing there that others (mainly Calvinist theologians) seem to find. That’s already like a willingness to spend five weeks in the North Pole to satisfy the die-hards that Santa really isn’t up there with elves. Though, I do appreciate this even more extended stay from Dr. Allen in taking up the hassle to go deeper on this passage here nonetheless.
I wonder how much of our efforts to “prove” our “theological idea in hunt for a text” (as Pritchett said) has more to do with winning an argument than helping others to grow in Christ. Before reading this article I tried to look at how a Calvinist might read Romans 8:29 (“For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined… so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;”) to fit their idea into the text and avoid those hints that, perhaps, the predestination isn’t TO salvation but to conformity WITH Christ for those IN Christ. To wit, I really enjoyed this: “the clear texts affirming unlimited atonement simply do not teach unlimited atonement and must be filtered through deductive logical/theological arguments, such as Double Payment, Triple-Choice, Trinitarian Disharmony, Universalism Entailed, etc., none of which occur in Scripture.”Classic.
I am looking forward to reading the remaining posts, and your tome “The Extent of the Atonement” is on my shelf awaiting 2020 reading! I am considering reading it alongside Grudem’s “Systematic Theology” on the subject, and appreciate that you’ve participated in giving cogent and respectful responses to Calvinistic ideas. Thank you sir!