« Dave Miller new 2nd VP | Main | Traditional Statement now “errs” but not “heresy”? by Peter Lumpkins »

Jun 27, 2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Wayne

not looking for a fight - promise. Please forgive me. I'm not playing dumb, I'm probably just a little ignorant when I ask this question: Are you saying penal substitutionary atonement is an exclusively Calvinistic doctrine?

peter lumpkins

Nope. I'm saying it's historical fiction to suggest what Founders Calvinists like Mohler and Ascol routinely suggest that somehow Baptists of the south were virtually all Calvinists.

With that, I am...
Peter

Wayne

ok. I missed that. Thanks for the clarification. I'm not sure how anyone could know if they were all virtually Calvinists or not. It seems futile to try and prove or disprove.

Stephen Garrett

Dear Peter:

You said that Broaddus did "flat out reject the Owenic sense of a "pecuniary transaction"."

But, I do not see where Broaddus did this for he said:

"The error, as I consider it, lies in conceiving of this matter and in representing it, too much in accordance with the idea of a pecuniary transaction-of a penalty paid, or a debt discharged with a sum of money. It is true, indeed, that the figurative manner in which the atonement is sometimes represented in the scriptures..."

He was opposed to seeing "too much" of the pecuniary aspect emphasized. He even admits that the peuniary aspect was taught in Scripture.

Fuller's brand of Calvinism grew much in the early 19th century.

Because He Lives,

Stephen Garrett

peter lumpkins

Stephen,

Thanks for the interaction. You're correct: Broaddus doesn't seem to reject all allusions to a pecuniary transaction--payments for sin in place of the sinner--"ye are bought with a price", etc. He did, however, flat out reject the Owenic sense of a pecuniary transaction. He could not have specifically held to general atonement in both its nature and extent while at the same time holding on to John Owen's account of pecuniary transaction.

And, I agree with you concerning Fuller's influence, an influence that changed the face of Calvinism in the old south.

Thanks again, Stephen.

With that, I am...
Peter

Scott

Many New Calvinists (myself included) would actually agree with what Broaddus seems to be have said. Some use the coined phrase "Unlimited Limited Atonement" to refer to the fact that Jesus died for all people and yet it's only effectively applied to those who believe by grace through faith. Some Five Point purists may not agree, but both of these truths are found in Scripture.

peterlumpkins

Scott,

Yes, that's Driscoll's term in his book on doctrine but does not equal Broaddus'. Broaddus took a view which was called in LA circles as an "Arminian" view. His view was very similar if not identical to non-Calvinist SBCers today. And, so far as I am concerned, the "unlimited limited" language is clever but only muddies the water.

Thanks, Scott.

With that, I am...
Peter

Craig

Driscoll wrote a book on doctrine? Self publication is a wonderful thing.

The comments to this entry are closed.